Conspicuous Sustainability Harnessing the Potential of the Social Economy in Order to Achieve Sustainability Goals

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/62 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

Conspicuous Sustainability Harnessing the potential of the social economy in order to achieve sustainability goals

Johnny McCreesh

DEPARTMENT OF

EARTH SCIENCES

INSTITUTIONEN FÖR GEOVETENSKAPER

Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2019/62 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling

Conspicuous Sustainability Harnessing the potential of the social economy in order to achieve sustainability goals

Johnny McCreesh

Supervisor: Jens Rommel Subject Reviewer: Jacob Dalgaard Christensen

Contents LIST OF FIGURES ...... III SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT ...... IV SUMMARY ...... V 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

MOTIVATION ...... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ...... 2 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION ...... 3 1.4 PAPER LAYOUT ...... 3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...... 4

2.1 SMITH, MARX AND THE CLASSICAL ROLE OF STATUS ...... 4 2.2 VEBLEN AND STATUS IN A BURGEONING CONSUMER SOCIETY ...... 5 2.3 CONSUMER LIFESTYLES AND IN-GROUP EXCLUSIVITY ...... 6 2.4 STATUS SYMBOLS AND SUSTAINABILITY ...... 8 2.5 CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION IN PRACTICE ...... 10 2.6 CONCLUSION ...... 11 3 EXPERIMENTAL METHODS ...... 12

3.1 JUSTIFICATION ...... 12 3.2 THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ...... 14 3.3 RECRUITMENT ...... 15 3.4 EXPERIMENT PRACTICALITIES ...... 16 3.4.1 Pre-Experiment Documentation...... 16 3.4.2 Pilot Run ...... 17 3.4.3 Payments ...... 17 3.4.4 Location ...... 17 3.4.5 Limitations ...... 17 3.5 THE EXPERIMENT SEQUENCE...... 18 4 RESULTS ...... 22

4.1 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS ...... 22 4.1.1 Sustainability Preferences ...... 23 4.1.2 Schwartz Survey Results ...... 25 4.2 TREATMENT ALLOCATION ...... 27 4.3 STATISTICAL RESULTS ...... 27 4.4 REVIEW OF MAIN HYPOTHESES ...... 29 4.4.1 Hypothesis One ...... 29 4.4.2 Hypothesis Two ...... 31 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 34

5.1 GROUP DYNAMICS ...... 34 5.2 INEFFICIENCY AND WASTEFULNESS ...... 35 5.3 SUSTAINABILITY AND (IN)CONSPICUOUS (NON)CONSUMPTION ...... 36 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS AND FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 37 6 CONCLUSION ...... 40

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 41 8 REFERENCES ...... 42 APPENDIXES ...... 51

APPENDIX A: ETHICAL REVIEW ...... 51 APPENDIX B: PRE-REGISTRATION DOCUMENT ...... 52 APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 53 APPENDIX D: TESTING ROUND ...... 54 APPENDIX E: EARNINGS TABLES: ALL POSSIBLE GROUPS ...... 55 APPENDIX F: TEST INSTRUCTIONS ...... 56 APPENDIX G: GENERAL KNOWLEDGE TEST ...... 57 APPENDIX H: SUSTAINABILITY KNOWLEDGE TEST ...... 59 APPENDIX I: CRT TEST ...... 62 APPENDIX J: TEST RANKING INFORMATION SLIPS ...... 63 APPENDIX K: LIVE AUCTION INSTRUCTIONS ...... 64 APPENDIX L: LIVE AUCTION ...... 65 APPENDIX M: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEYS COMBINED ...... 66 APPENDIX N: SESSION INFORMATION SHEET ...... 72

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Trickle Down Tastes Model ...... 5 Figure 2. Trickle-Round Tastes Model...... 7 Figure 3. Ten Value Traits from the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values ...... 8 Figure 4. Mean Demand Curves by Treatment in Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) ...... 10 Figure 5. The Control-Context Spectrum of Experimental Auctions...... 13 Figure 6. Definitions of Ten Value Traits from the Schwartz Theory of Values ...... 25 Figure 7. Demand for Protein Bars by Ranked and Unranked Participants ...... 29 Figure 8. Demand Curve for Chocolates by Treatment (Clingingsmith and Sheremata, 2008) ...... 29 Figure 9. Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Treatment Type and Price ...... 31 Figure 10. Welfare Loss due to Conspicuous Consumption ...... 35

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Experiment Design used in Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) ...... 10 Table 2: Total Participants in each Experiment Treatment Session ...... 15 Table 3. Demographic Information of All Participants (n=81) ...... 22 Table 4. Participant Test Results ...... 22 Table 5. Participant’s Dietary Preferences (n=81) ...... 23 Table 6. Relative Importance of Factors in Influencing Food Purchase Choices of Participants ...... 23 Table 7. Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire Results (Maximum Score = 5.00) ...... 24 Table 8. Results from the Schwartz Attitudes Survey ...... 26 Table 9. Participants per Treatment ...... 27 Table 10. OLS Regression Analysis of Treatment Effects ...... 27 Table 11. TOBIT Regression Analysis of Treatment Effects ...... 28 Table 12. Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Pooled Treatment Type ...... 30 Table 13. Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Price and by Treatment...... 32 Table 14. Change in Demand of Status-Induced Treatments Compared to Random Treatment ...... 32

III

Conspicuous Sustainability: Harnessing the potential of the social economy in order to achieve sustainability goals

JOHNNY MCCREESH

McCreesh, J., 2019. Conspicuous Sustainability: Harnessing the potential of the social economy in order to achieve sustainability goals. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University. No. 2019/62, 72 pp, 30 ECTS/hp

Scientific Abstract:

Conspicuous consumption is a form of economic behaviour in which social pressure influences consumption decisions. Considering the current understanding of the detrimental ecological impact of excessive consumption practices, this paper overviews the potential to lessen wasteful consumption trends by utilising conspicuous consumption. This paper overviews research into this phenomenon, commencing with Thorstein Veblen’s work at the end of the nineteenth century. Combining this with research from sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, this paper suggests potential indicators of sustainable consumption tendencies, including personality traits and group dynamics. The empirical aspect of this study successfully replicates the findings of a recent investigation into conspicuous consumption; that is, that consumption increases when conducted in public and income is linked to status. This study has been updated to include various aspects of sustainability behaviour and knowledge and has found trends associated with students of sustainability in Uppsala, Sweden. Furthermore, this paper suggests that the encouragement of conspicuous forms of sustainability could inspire sustainable consumption trends, or potentially lead to a reduction of overall consumption. Finally, this paper makes recommendations for policy makers in order to encourage social sustainability practices, building upon nascent movements such as Flygskam (Flight Shame) and Anti-Smoking strategies.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, conspicuous consumption, status, experimental economics, behavioural economics, environmental psychology.

Johnny McCreesh, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

Conspicuous Sustainability: Harnessing the potential of the social economy in order to achieve sustainability goals

JOHNNY MCCREESH

Summary:

Research has consistently found evidence to support a widely held belief; that many people buy things in order to improve or increase their perceived status in society. This ranges from ensuring they are wearing the latest brands, wearing expensive jewellery or ensuring that their car is the same size as their next-door-neighbours. This is the ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ phenomenon that is common throughout consumer societies across the world, when individuals link social status to the accumulation of material goods. Societies with high levels of materialism are linked to high levels of wastefulness and precious resource use, which is regarded as unsustainable. This paper explores research in fields of economics, sociology and psychology to support the findings, which recognise that conspicuous consumption occurs. This paper carried out a practical experiment to exhibit the phenomenon, and investigates the traits associated with individuals and groups who display these tendencies. The findings provide a basis for further research and suggest that governments could utilise the same status triggers in order to encourage sustainable behaviour, ranging from switching to more sustainable products or reducing consumption as a whole. This paper concludes with a number of recommendations for policy makers in order to encourage social sustainability practices, building upon recent social movements such as Flygskam (Flight Shame) and Anti-Smoking strategies.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, conspicuous consumption, status, experimental economics, behavioural economics, environmental psychology

Johnny McCreesh, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden

1. Introduction

“Male birds are given to ecstatic dancing, impressive colours on their tail feathers, floating elegantly around, heads raised proudly… humans aren’t that different. But rather than simply dancing proudly with what we’ve got, we buy feathers and colours and dresses and cars and boats and large houses and countless other things to display how big out playground is. On Easter Island it was about bigger and bigger statues. It our communities it is about the large home and flashy cars. The challenge is that status is relative. It is not just about having shiny feathers, a large statue, beautiful houses or fast cars; it is also about having more than others”

– What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Climate Change. (Stoknes and Randers, 2015, pg. 37)

“Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions…Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales, and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives”

– Extract from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report IPCC, 2015, pg. 26). Motivation

Governments around the world are currently undertaking efforts to improve their sustainable impact. One particularly important aspect of governmental policy is the ecological impact of consumption trends. In analysis of 43 countries with the highest global emissions, household consumption was found to contribute directly and indirectly to a majority of national greenhouse gas emissions, land footprints and water footprints (65%, 70% and 81% respectively, Ivanova et al., 2016). While recycling or more efficient production methods can mitigate the impact of this, there is a strong potential for reducing the environmental impact of consumption by altering consumer trends. These can include encouraging switching to more sustainable products or reducing the amount that each person consumes. The provision of food is frequently identified as an essential area to improve and safeguard in a sustainable future. Improved knowledge of the impact of certain food production methods often results in increased pressure to change methods of production and trends in consumption. Historically, governments have used classical economic instruments such as tax policy and regulation to influence consumption. While potentially effective, these methods are not without drawbacks; often described as unfair, draconian or patronising. By influencing social behaviours, consumer behaviour could be altered to mitigate the risks of climate change. One social phenomenon which may be harnessed for sustainability purposes is conspicuous consumption. There is a long debate as to whether the responsibility for consumption lies with producers or consumers, by harnessing the potential of conspicuous consumption, government can encourage autonomous behaviour among individuals, resulting in authentic, long lasting changes.

1.2 Background

Over the course of the last century, the human impact on the global ecosystem has grown increasingly detrimental. The latest ‘Synthesis Report’ by the world’s leading climate scientists in the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reiterated the danger of the current situation, “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems” (IPCC, 2015, pg.8). The IPCC report is consistent with a wide body of research which has recognised that over-consumption of resources has contributed to the climate emergency and that it is essential for contemporary lifestyles to change in order to reduce the damage caused to the environment (Brundtland, 1987; Daly et al., 1994; Jackson, 2009; Meadows et al., 1972). The introduction to the Paris Agreement, the largest global climate accord, emphasises the “important role [that]…sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production play [in] addressing climate change” ( (United Nations, 2015, pg. 2).

The European Union has committed to play a leading global role in adapting consumption behaviours through Sustainable Development Strategy (European Commission, 2018). One aspect of consumption which has been identified by policy makers as having large potential for an improvement is food provision. Food production in Europe has a huge impact on the environment (exhausting 48% of land resources and 70% of water resources across Europe) (Ivanova et al., 2016). National governments such as in Sweden, are developing sustainable food provision strategies, exploring more localised production and less intensive production (Regeringskansliet, 2017). Crucially, for these strategies to take hold, consumer demand must adapt to the new products on offer.

Governments often use classical economic methods to influence demand, predominantly taking the form of taxation, raising the prices of goods; or regulation, the restriction or outright banning of certain products. These approaches are potentially problematic with regards to a transition to more sustainable consumption. Taxes on consumption often disproportionately impact consumers at the lower end of the wealth spectrum, with richer consumers more able to absorb the additional costs with no change in behaviour (Creedy, 1998; Decoster et al., 2010). Alternatively, regulations risk increasing resentment among citizens that they are ‘losing’ a previously held right. The potential drawbacks of such techniques are currently observable through recent gilets jaunes protests in France, with strong resentment of taxation implemented in the name of a ‘green transition’ (Geroe, 2019). Environmental psychologists recognise that in order to for changes to be effective and regarded as fair, more imagination is required in the method of promotion, with seemingly autonomous decision making helping to persuade individuals to change their behaviour (Stoknes and Randers, 2015).

One method of persuasion which has been growing in popularity in governments has been the use of behavioural ‘nudges. Nudges are defined as a method of influencing individuals “in a predictable way forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). The British Government has utilised the concept through the Behavioural Insights Team, which reports on the potential for low impact individual changes leading to sustainable benefits (B.I.T., 2019). Scholars have critiqued the use of nudging on numerous levels; citing the questionable ethical basis of influencing actions in such a disguised manner (Leggett, 2014), or the citing nudges alone are unlikely to lead to long-lasting behavioural changes (Mols et al., 2015). Prominent sustainable economist, Kate Raworth, suggests that while potentially useful, nudging for sustainability may merely lead to superficial changes. Furthermore, the passive approach of nudging uses methods which are patronising

of the population’s desire for change. Raworth suggests that policy makers could harness the potential of social norms in encouraging deep rooted behaviour changes, alongside existing methods (Raworth, 2017. Chapter. 3).

One of the first economists to recognise the potency of social norms was Thorstein Veblen. In 1899, Veblen released “The Theory of the Leisure Class” in which he recognised a phenomenon by which extremely wealthy individuals altered their consumption behaviour when under perceived social pressure, “It becomes indispensable to accumulate, to acquire property, in order to retain one’s good name” (Veblen, 1899, pp. 29). Conspicuous consumption, as this phenomenon was coined by Veblen, is contemporarily defined as “lavish or wasteful spending thought to enhance social prestige” (Merrium-Webster, 2019). While initially undertaken by extremely wealthy individuals, conspicuous consumption has permeated through all classes of contemporary society, in a manner described by Joseph Stiglitz as “trickle down behaviourism” (2011). Various studies have found examples of socially influenced consumption occurring across all income levels and various demographic backgrounds (Mason, 1984). As conspicuous consumption is associated with an increase of consumption, this effect could be responsible to the current record levels of individual waste, with the average European citizen generating over six tonnes of waste per year, with less than one third recycled (Eurostat, 2018).

By recognising that consumption is influenced by social norms and that conspicuous consumption does occur, there is a strong potential for policy makers to harness this phenomenon in order to encourage sustainable behaviour (Clingingsmith and Sheremeta, 2018; Griskevicius et al., 2010). This paper will seek to suggest how this could be utilised by government policy makers. 1.3 Research Question

This paper will discuss the following research question: RQ1. How could policy makers utilise the social aspect of consumption in order to meet pressing sustainability needs?

In answering this question, it is assumed that that policy makers, or governments, are working to reduce their ecological impact and improve their sustainability. This paper will explore the answer to this question by exploring the following sub-questions:

SQa: How distinctive are individuals who exhibit interest in sustainability? SQb: How are individual purchases influenced by social status signalling? SQc: Does ‘sustainability knowledge’ illicit the same impact on status as more established forms of status, elicited through measures of intelligence?

1.4 Paper Layout

This paper will seek to respond to this research question by examining primary and secondary data. An interdisciplinary approach will encourage a novel blend of understanding, utilising research from complementary fields of economics, environmental science, sociology and psychology. Research from these areas will be presented and collated in a literature review in Section 2. The primary method of experimentation in this paper will be described in Section 3. The preliminary results of this experiment are presented in Section 4. These results are further discussed, with reference to the research question in Section 5. The paper is concluded in Section 6 with a final reflection.

2 Literature Review

This review will present a range of economic research on the social aspect of consumption. Academic works have been selected for their reference to conspicuous consumption and their potential application to an economic approach to sustainable development.

The review will begin with a brief overview of classical economic references to status, leading on to the work of Thorstein Veblen in “The Theory of the Leisure Class” (1899) before discuss the additions of Pierre Bourdieu’s “Distinction” (1984). The review will then refer to contemporary studies of conspicuous consumption and how it is influenced by individual and social values. Finally, the review will focus on a specific study of conspicuous consumption using experimental economics, “Status and Demand for Visible Goods” (Clingingsmith and Sheremeta, 2018), which forms the inspiration for the primary methodology of this thesis. 2.1 Smith, Marx and the Classical Role of Status

The study of status long predates the study of economics, with Adam Smith noted in early work on political philosophy, “We desire both to be respectable and to be respected. We dread both to be contemptible and condemned” (Smith, 1759 in Nord, 1973). References to social status are incorporated in thousands of years of philosophical and religious texts, artistic pieces and literature. Social status would form the basis of many early classical discussions of economic philosophies.

By the mid-19th century, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels recognised the influence of relative status on human behaviour, “Our wants and pleasures have their origin in society; we therefore measure them in relation to society; we do not measure them in relation to the objects which serve for their gratification. Since they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature” (Marx and Engels, 1942, pg. 33). This suggests that the social aspect of consumption was key to the personal utility gained by such decisions, having more than your neighbour would prove essential in providing satisfaction: “A house may be large or small; as long as the neighbouring houses are likewise…but let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighbouring palace rises in equal or even greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within its four walls.” (ibid.).

While many classical economists agreed on the relative nature of consumption, there were key disagreements on the origins of the influence. Marxian scholars believe that manufacturers are responsible for creating desires, or needs; while followers of Ricardo and Smith believed that autonomous individuals were primarily in charge of their own actions (Mclntyre, 1992). These classical theories were further developed in the early 20th century, often incorporating new theories of sociology as demonstrated by institutional economists such as Thorstein Veblen.

2.2 Veblen and Status in a Burgeoning Consumer Society

In the late 19th century the United States was becoming increasingly wealthy and unequal, with steadily rising income and wealth inequality (Piketty and Saez, 2003). With increasing potential for working-class resentment akin to growing social movements in Europe, justifications were sought for this growing wealth disparity. Some of the countries religious leaders and churches suggested that inequality was a reward for the strong Protestant work ethic. Prominent academics like the sociologist Herbert Spencer justified such extreme inequality as a form of social-Darwinism (Canterbery, 1999). As time progressed, overt displays of accumulated wealth were soon regarded as the proof of hard work and could be a sign of pride: “In order to stand well in the eyes of the community, it is necessary to come up to a certain, somewhat indefinite, conventional standard of wealth” (Veblen, 1899, pg. 30).

As wealth in American society became more widespread, the amount of wealth would soon become regarded as secondary to the social performance of those who held the wealth (Trigg, 2001). Flamboyant actions would prove essential in maintaining high status roles for certain wealthy groups. Originally these acts were conveyed through ostentatious leisure activities, with expansive home estates with in which to recline and socialise. However, as North American society became more mobile and transient, these relatively private acts of leisure would soon lose their impact. Simultaneously, a boom in domestic production led to increasing numbers of expensive consumer goods. Luxurious items like automobiles soon became the more popular method of conspicuously displaying one’s wealth. Objects such as jewellery were not just valued by signalling their use, but also their apparent uselessness, “the element of waste is common to both [leisure and consumption],…in one case it is a waste of time and effort in the other it is a waste of goods” (Veblen, 1899, pg. 85).

Around 1900, conspicuous acts of leisure, consumption and waste were limited to a small privileged segment of society. Veblen identified class differences as being key identifiers to conspicuous acts. Those who were able to demonstrate conspicuous consumption or leisure were inevitably members of the upper, leisure class. The social strata beneath would be in a constant state of insatiability in their attempts to ascend, believing that by replicating consumption decisions they would be welcomed to the higher classes. In this model, consumption trends ‘trickle down’ from the wealthiest to the working classes, as depicted in Figure 1. Joseph Stiglitz would later refer to this phenomenon when he described the 21st century’s growing trend of individuals living outside their means as ‘trickle down behaviourism” (Stiglitz, 2011).

Figure 1. Trickle Down Tastes Model The diffusion of trends and tastes through class segments in Veblen’s model of society (Trigg, 2001).

Veblen’s analysis was not an immediate success within the economics community, however as time passed it gained supporters and widespread respect. In the mid-20th century, Harvey Leibenstein released a prominent paper on the theory of demand and consumption (Leibenstein, 1950), drawing extensively on Veblen’s work. Leibenstein examined the motivation behind consumer demand and differentiated between functional and non-functional aspects. Functional demand described the satisfaction and desire that an individual receives from the product itself, which is the central motivation accounted for in (neo)classical economic theory. Leibenstein recognised non-functional motivations that an individual may have for purchasing a good, and some unexpected impacts that these motivations would have on price mechanisms. The dominant aspect of non-functional demand was caused by a series of external social effects. These social effects referred to the pressures placed on individuals and included the measure of conspicuous consumption, named after the original researcher; “by the Veblen effect we refer to the phenomenon of conspicuous consumption; to the extent to which the demand for a consumers’ good is increased because it bears a higher rather than a lower price” (Leibenstein, 1950, pg. 189).

Sociologists in the 1970s continued to recognise the socially relative status of consumption. Fred Hirsch coined the term ‘positional goods’ to recognise items that were valuable because they were scarce, or unavailable to the majority of consumers. The utility goal was often to have the resources that contemporaries could not have. In this view, reminiscent of those of the classical economists, utility does not arise simply from a high income, but from having a higher income, relative to others. “As the level of average consumption rises, an increasing portion of consumption takes on a social as well as an individual aspect. That is to say, the satisfaction that individuals derive from good and services depends on increasing measure, not only from their own consumption but on the consumption by others as well” (Hirsch, 1976, pg. 2).

These scholars analysed the consumer society in the 20th century; they refer to an increasingly materialist and competitive setting in which consumption was occurring. A new era of sociologists would soon recognise that consumption was not only a race towards the high status of the upper classes. Instead, consumption was also being used to distinguish between class groups, with social pressures and stigma actively opposing entry of individuals from other classes and groups. While the purpose of consumption may have broadened, the act of consuming would still prove to be a powerful social indicator.

2.3 Consumer Lifestyles and In-Group Exclusivity

The post-war industrial boom in the 1950s and 1960s saw consumerism reach increasing levels of diffusion in Western societies. Formerly exclusive consumer goods such as automobiles and televisions became more affordable due to mass production and increasing wages. This had an impact on their relevance as a signal of status, “lush expenditure could be afforded by so many that it ceased to be useful as a mark of distinction” (Galbraith, 1999, pg. 72). Therefore, a new method of differentiating oneself from others was emerging.

In his seminal work, Distinction, Pierre Bourdieu (1984) discusses how social status was defined, not simply by the goods people purchased, but by all of the capital they possessed. Bourdieu identified numerous forms of capital that existed outside of financial values, with cultural capital being critical in social settings. The cultural form of capital was often the primary means for groups to distinguish themselves. This included demonstrating interest in specific films, music or styles of clothing. Interestingly, Bourdieu found that it was not only the higher classes distinguishing themselves above the middle and the middle above the lower, but rather all class and smaller social groups were finding

distinct niches in order to differentiate themselves from others. In this way, the transmission of taste was no longer simply ‘trickling-down’ as in Veblen’s model, but would prove to be a dynamic process, with groups and economic classes appropriating and transmitting cultural influences between each other, as depicted in Figure 2 (Bourdieu, 1984; Trigg, 2001).

Figure 2. Trickle-Round Tastes Model. The diffusion of trends and tastes through class segments in Bourdieu’s model of society (Trigg, 2001)

Bourdieu discussed the origin of tastes and consumption decisions and proposed the role of the Habitus in shaping consumption decisions. Habitus is created through social processes and guides individual decision making and actions. It is neither a sole construct of the individual nor a completely structural influence, but a blend of the two. This means that for individuals, status linked to consumption decisions is neither wholly autonomous, nor at the complete whims of institutions, but somewhere in the middle, influenced by dynamic groups of one’s peers. Social groups were constantly differentiating themselves from others, “social order is progressively inscribed in people’s minds’ through ‘cultural products’ including systems of education, language, judgements, values, methods of classification and activities of everyday life” (Bourdieu, 1984, pg. 471).

For Bourdieu, the essential aspect of conspicuous consumption is the knowledge of what to consume in the first place. By having a certain educational background, the individual is differentiated from others in being able to develop ‘taste’. Tasteful goods are often those which are not universally popular but rather display some sign of scarcity. In other words, the exclusivity of a good is how it gains allure and desirability. For example, knowing the correct clothing to wear at a social occasion was a way of signalling your position within a social group to your peers (Dettmann and Dimitri, 2009; Trigg, 2001).

Bourdieu’s work suggests that conspicuous consumption will exist when there is a degree of exclusivity linked to the product. Therefore, there may be a limit to goods being universally popular and displaying conspicuous signalling power. In the environmental movement, this means that popular goods such as organic food may be successful as objects of status projection because they are expensive and exclusive. Furthermore, the beneficial impact of the organic food is known by other members of the in-group. This need for exclusivity can be explained by the need to signal within one’s social group, or in-group only. Signalling to complete strangers may be regarded as a waste of resources and instead signals are most effective when the receiver is also knowledgeable of the ‘taste’ being promoted. Research in to environmental behaviour has found that distinct ‘in-groups’ occur among those interested in sustainability (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Specific in-group dynamics appear to be vital to encourage socially influenced consumption. In-groups refer to coalitions of individuals who share value systems and outlooks on the rest of the world. Research of environmental groups found trends of positive emotional support to commit to ‘green’ behaviour and negative stigma attached to non- environmental behaviour (Harth et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2009).

The Schwartz Theory of Basic Values (Davidov et al., 2008) is the most widely cited method used to identify the dominant worldviews or value traits individuals hold. Frequently, conspicuous consumption is linked to high scores in the Self-Enhancement sector of the model, with individual factors such as Achievement and Power proving particularly influential. These traits are depicted in Figure 3 (Davidov et al., 2008).

Figure 3. Ten Value Traits from the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values Displays the structural relations between the ten value systems of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Values are held on two axes, with opposite traits forming two ends of each spectrum e.g. Self-Transcendence – Self- Enhancement (Davidov et al. 2008).

Studies on social consumption and group behaviour often draw on early work on individual behaviour and rational choice models such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The theory suggests that social pressure has a key influence on individual behaviour and evidence has consistently been found to support this suggestion (de Groot and Steg, 2007; Kim et al., 2018). One pan-European study found social pressures present in the consumption of food in particular, “subjective norms are the main underlying behaviour concerning [sustainable food] products” (Ruiz de Maya et al., 2011). These studies often suggest that groups of individuals are brought together and separated depending on their acceptance of rejection of value systems.

By being brought together by shared social values and common cultural capital, distinct social groups are primed for conspicuous consumption to occur. Historically, research has found that conspicuous consumption is often triggered by values of achievement and power. These values are associated with increased materialism and associated with less positive attitudes towards environmentalism (Stoknes and Randers, 2015, pg. 153). However, some recent studies in conspicuous consumption have found examples of pro-sustainable behaviour being a trigger for increased consumption levels, and these are outlined in the next section.

2.4 Status Symbols and Sustainability

Conspicuous Consumption has continued to be studied throughout the late 20th century. In line with Bourdieu’s analysis, many contemporary studies examine conspicuous consumption undertaken by minorities and niche groups of consumers. Studies recognising the impact of social class (Ordabayeva

and Chandon, 2011) and race (Charles et al., 2009) have found indications that minorities engage in high levels of social consumption. Gender is a particularly significant indicator of whether an individual engages in conspicuous consumption; studies have repeatedly identified males as the predominant exhibitors of conspicuous consumption. This is explained by evolutionary psychologists as having roots in signalling sexual availability (Sundie et al., 2011). Further studies have found that conspicuous leisure has once more become the dominant form of signalling status, with social media use encouraging consumers to share their experiences and boast of their specific knowledge of where to go on holiday (Bellezza et al., 2017; Bronner and Hoog, 2018; Correia et al., 2016). This indicates that certain demographic groups are keen to display their differences through their consumption decisions.

There are various studies linking conspicuous consumption with an increased prevalence of materialism. Studies suggest that conspicuous consumption is more prevalent in societies dominated by status and the accumulation of material wealth (Podoshen and Andrzejewski, 2012; Wong, 1997). The phrase, ‘Keeping up with the Joneses’ refers to a phenomenon that is demonstrated when socially sensitive consumers react to their peers or neighbours consumption decisions (Galí, 1994; Mason, 1998). For example, when a neighbour purchases a new car, or extends their home, it may encourage similar behaviour as a reaction (Kuhn et al., 2011). This is not exclusively a ‘Western’ phenomenon, but rather linked to the emergence of market societies and economies, with evidence suggesting that as China has become more market orientated, increased materialism is increasing status signalling in consumption (Podoshen and Andrzejewski, 2012).

These findings suggest that there is a clear link between a culture of consumerism and occurrences of conspicuous consumption. Due to this link, it is understandable that researchers interested in sustainability and sustainable consumption have been examining the potential impact of social status on sustainable behaviour. While conspicuous consumption has historically been linked to personal values linked to ego and self-enhancement, there is growing evidence that triggering altruistic and universal values may be critical in triggering consumption linked to environmentalism or sustainability (Kareklas et al., 2014; Thøgersen, 2011).

Kim et al. (2018) find that organic consumers are more likely to regard themselves and see other organic consumers as ‘good people’. Critically, the study also found that individual’s willingness to pay for organic food was much higher when they were being observed. Griskevicius et al. (2010) found that individuals may choose to purchase goods because of strongly held altruistic values. However, they also found that when conducted in private, consumption of more environmentally friendly goods was lower than when carried out in public. Similar results were also seen in consumption research around the world (de Groot and Steg, 2007; Gilg et al., 2005).

This body of research frequently suggests a reinforcing mechanism occurs among ‘green’ individuals, with implicit social pressure from other members of the ‘good’ group encouraging further pro-environmental actions. However, this research also suggests a degree of superficiality to the behaviour, with stronger results occurring when consumption is public. This would be detrimental to long term reductions in consumption, given that deep rooted behaviours and habits may not be have been changed.

Pro-environmental behaviour is not only limited to consumption of green products, and in fact non- consumption (buying nothing) may also be regarded as a signal, in particularly among those groups with strong altruistic or ecological values (Peattie, 2010; Isenhour, 2012). A prominent study of status signalling supports these trends, with ‘high quality signallers’ – individuals with high confidence in their own values – undertaking significantly less conspicuous consumption, compared to those with

medium or low confidence (Feltovich et al., 2001). This would suggest that individuals with the highest awareness of sustainability may in fact signal the least or purchase fewest sustainable products.

2.5 Conspicuous Consumption in Practice

Experimental research carried out by Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) sought to examine instances of conspicuous consumption among students at an American University. The experiment studied multiple groups of 12 students and recorded consumption decisions following a number of distinct treatments. The experiment distributed various payments of income to participants, either at random or based on their session ranking in a general knowledge test. Income could then be used to purchase chocolates which would be presented either privately or publicly in front of their peers in the group. The design of the experiment (outlined in Table 1) allowed the researchers to determine:

1. Whether individual consumption is impacted by privacy when in a group; 2. Whether relative status within the group influences consumption (status was attributed to the source of the income: the score on the general knowledge test).

Chocolates Purchased in: Income Allocation Public Private Random 3 sessions, 36 participants in total 3 sessions, 36 participants in total

Rank 3 sessions, 36 participants in total 3 sessions, 36 participants in total

Table 1: Experiment Design used in Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018)

The study found significant evidence of conspicuous consumption when income was based on status (ranked due to the general knowledge score). Figure 4 demonstrates that on average, participants who made public consumption decisions and were given income based on their general knowledge score (the demand curve furthest to the right), consumed more than twice as much as participants ranked at random or purchasing in private.

Figure 4. Mean Demand Curves by Treatment in Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018)

This study suggests that conspicuous consumption is not solely based on consumption being a public act. It is consistent with the research mentioned previously in this review, as it suggests that signalling occurs when there is a relative status associated with the consumption. In this study, the status

was associated with the students being ranked based on general knowledge, a common distinction which occurs in an academic setting. The study also found significant correlations between gender and instances conspicuous consumption, with almost all effects attributed to male participants, a finding supported in other research on conspicuous consumption (Sundie et al., 2011). 2.6 Conclusion Theories of conspicuous consumption and status signalling have long been discussed and debated. Earlier studies suggest a straightforward method of signalling, by purchasing expensive goods or undertaking ostentatious leisure activities. As research has continued, the formation of niches and smaller groups within society has been discovered as being influential in consumption trends. An example of this is the environmental movement, including individuals who choose to purchase organic foods. These niches and groups are consistently linked to educational achievement and individual values, which in turn are influenced by social norms and pressures attributed to ‘in-group’ dynamics.

While conspicuous consumption is most prevalent within small groups, or niches, awareness of environmental problems has become increasingly more widespread and dispersed. While a broader appeal is beneficial for the wider environmental movement, it may have the side effect of reducing the conspicuous signalling appeal of environmental products. Individuals may begin to reduce their levels of conspicuous consumption, as the signalling benefits become less potent as the in-group is no longer as small or concentrated – when everyone is driving a Toyota Prius, or drinking organic milk, there is a reduced signalling effect of you doing so also.

By designing an experiment of conspicuous consumption linked to sustainability, it may be possible to demonstrate similarities or differences compared to the Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) paper. Given that the public nature of signalling has been consistently found, this paper will instead focus on the source of the status influencing consumption. It will identify a specific in-group (students of sustainability), a product to consume (a sustainable snack bar) and trigger potential status signalling within the group by testing group-specific knowledge (sustainability test). In doing so, it will be possible to suggest whether sustainability knowledge is regarded as containing the same status signals as general knowledge.

3 Experimental Methods

“An ounce of practice is generally worth more than a ton of theory.” (Schumacher, 1973)

The primary method used in this study is an experimental auction, based on the study of Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018). The methodology and justification of the process is described below.

3.1 Justification

Experiments allow scientists to test theories and for hypotheses to be falsified (Popper, 1968). By conducting primary research, such as conducting experiments, it is possible to test key assumptions from the history of economic thought. Following a review of literature, it is possible to suggest a hypothesis which may or may not be true in a given situation. By conducting experiments, these hypotheses can then be tested, or falsified, and the results then replicated (Kagel and Roth, 1995).

Experimental economics can be described as a type of empirical research in that it seeks to observe the world in order to make statements about it. However, it differs from classical empirical study in that it uses controlled experiments in order to gather the observation. Experimental economists use these controls “to help understand the complex area of decision making, separating out specific factors which may influence the subjects” (Lusk and Shogren, 2007, pg. 269).

The experiment presented in this paper presents the opportunity to test the theories explored during the literature review. It can contribute to experimental economics by testing the robustness of the test carried out by Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018). The addition of a sustainability knowledge test and the selection of participants from fields of sustainability academia allows the results to contribute to the field of Sustainable Development. The results can be used to ascertain if sustainability confers status on its advocates and how much of a niche pursuit it is, or potentially can be in the future.

In the context of experimental economics, auctions include a wide array of techniques for finding out, or eliciting, the demand for a product by an individual. Based on experiments alone, it is very difficult to know exactly what a subject would do in a non-experimental context. While experiments may seek to replicate ‘real world conditions’, the observation and of actions and choices inevitably influences subjects.

Lusk and Shogren (2007) present a thorough examination of experimental auctions and describe the benefits and drawbacks of the various experimental approaches. Figure 5 demonstrates the main trade-offs that exist in experimentation, between context and control. Control implies that the researcher keeps external influences constant or adjusts for them in the analysis, and that the research can be assured that choices are made within the constructed environment only. Context is how closely the setting and choice reflect real life situations.

Figure 5. The Control-Context Spectrum of Experimental Auctions. This spectrum outlines the trade-offs which exist in various methods of experimentation. Increased control is often associated with a decline in the quality of context (Lusk and Shogren, 2007, pg.15).

The spectrum shows that the data that is the most context rich involves non-experimental data taken from sources such as supermarket loyalty card or other scanner data. The drawback of this is that the researcher has no controls in place (e.g. constant shopping conditions, socio-economic data, random and exogenous exposure to factors worthy of investigation) and cannot therefore fully determine factors such as cause and effect or understand environmental influences. On the other end of the spectrum, tightly controlled settings allow specific conclusions to be drawn, however these settings can be deemed sterile and are often critiqued for not reflecting the environments in which decisions are usually made (e.g. asking participants to relax and make normal decisions while being observed by numerous people or cameras).

While there are various types of auctions that have been used in experimental economics, the method used by Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) could reasonably be placed in the bottom right of the Value Elicitation Experiments II bubble in Figure 5. The context value is high as they use real money and real products and offer multiple possible prices. As the experiments are undertaken in a classroom under laboratory conditions, the control value is relatively high.

In recent years there have been growing calls to test the validity of experiment results by conducting replications. Work carried out by Camerer et al. (2016) sought to replicate experimental economics studies published in two major economic journals. They found that 61% of the papers displayed a ‘significant effect in the same direction of the original study’. This replication figure is much lower than the expected figure of 90% of papers being replicated (this is because the minimum power value selected was 0.9, equivalent to a beta value of 0.1) While these figures are higher than similar replication tests conducted in other social sciences, they still suggest a problem with replication across the field of economics. This study will seek to replicate a number of the aspects of Clingingsmith and Sheremata’s research (2018). While not a direct replication, it will still be possible to test the robustness of the original results and suggest whether these can be confirmed by this study.

Following the Literature Review, it was determined that two main areas of study would be added to this experiment; the segmentation and triggering of sustainability status, and the gathering of information linked to individual values. Building on the work of Bourdieu (1984) we can predict that certain social groups may display strong social signals in order to distinguish themselves from others. With respect to sustainable food consumption, one such group may be people who are studying in the field of Sustainability. This experiment will recruit participations from these backgrounds and link status outcomes to knowledge of sustainability. This will help determine whether sustainability knowledge is associated with status signalling.

The addition of the Schwartz Attitudes survey (Davidov et al., 2008) and the Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire (Gericke et al., 2019) allows the examination and classification of participant’s worldviews and values. These could then be compared with prior studies to determine whether certain values are more likely to result in certain behaviours. 3.2 Theoretical Model and Hypotheses

The theoretical model of the experiment is that of a standard experimental economics study. This experiment is essentially a deductive study of hypotheses that were determined after using inductive methodology through a literature review.

“[A]bout three centuries ago the trial-and-error experimentation of the artisan was wedded to the deductive method of reasoning of the mathematician; the progeny of this union have returned after many generations to assist the ‘sooty empiric’ in his labors.” (Conant, 1951, pg. 56).

Conant refers to John Stuart Mill when he describes this ‘sooty empiric’, a blend of deductive and inductive studies. This style of methodology is often used in experimental economics research (Croson, 2002; Hausman, 1981; Kagel and Roth, 1995). Experiments often use hypotheses to present assumptions, which are accepted when a null hypothesis is rejected. A null hypothesis can be rejected if is statistically determined that there is a significant correlation found (Cohen et al., 2000).

There are two primary hypotheses that were set out before this experiment (H1 and H2):

Based on the substantial body of research outlined in the Literature Review, conspicuous consumption is assumed to exist and is triggered by the potential for a type of status signalling. This was prominently displayed in the original Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) study. It is assumed that status is conferred when income is linked to a testable, scarce score, and therefore will exist only in the ranked experiments. This results in the primary hypothesis of this study:

H1: Consumption will be higher in Rank treatments than in Random treatments

The participants were primarily selected for their interest in sustainability, largely studying courses linked to Sustainable Development. It is predicted that small groups with a shared interest such as this would demonstrate conspicuous consumption in the area of that shared interest. Therefore, in this case the status conferred by Sustainability Knowledge would result in a greater impact than the status conferred by General Knowledge.

H2: Consumption will be higher in Rank Sustainability treatments than Rank General Knowledge treatments

In addition, there are 2 ancillary hypotheses (J1 and J2) that arose from the literature review which were not being directly tested but may be bring interesting results. They were not in the direct scope of this paper however:

The recruitment method should result in a group sharing similar interests in Sustainability. In sharing this interest in sustainability, participants may further share key value traits and worldviews, forming concentrated in-group characteristics.

J1: Participants would display strong in-group characteristics with similar results in the psychological tests.

Gender is often a factor in studies on conspicuous consumption, with men consistently displaying more sensitivity to signalling opportunities than women. Various studies, including that carried out by Clingingsmith and Sheremata have found men to be solely responsible for additional consumption.

J2: Conspicuous Consumption will be higher than average among men than women. 3.3 Recruitment Experiment participants were chosen from a relatively homogenous pool of students in Uppsala studying subjects linked to sustainability. This was to ensure that the groups would have a high likelihood of consisting of social peers. Given a hypothesis that consumption was linked to status, the pooling of participants among their peers would increase the likelihood of socially influenced effects. While groups were randomly created and filled, it is impossible to control for cliques of friends pooling together.

Out of 81 participants taking part there were: 60% females 32 countries represented and 90% Masters level students. A full breakdown of participant characteristics will be listed in Section 4. Results.

Participants were recruited using targeted posts in Facebook groups linked to each University class, and through student email. Recruitment was staggered across two weeks and twelve sessions. In the first week, recruitment was targeted at members of the first year of the Sustainable Development MSc Programme. Further recruitment involved other courses at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), including the Environmental Communications MSc, Sustainable Food Systems MSc and members of the Global Food Systems and Food Security course. These courses were selected as they were based at SLU and in the field of sustainability. This would mean that even if students were not in the same program, there was a high likelihood that they would be part of common networks. In week two, recruitment focused on the second year of the Sustainable Development Programme. Further invitations were offered to students of other CEMUS courses and members of Sustainability Students of Sweden.

Treatment Total Sessions Total Participants (per session) Random 4 28 (7, 7, 7, 7) General Knowledge 4 30 (8, 8, 8, 6) Sustainability Knowledge 4 23 (5, 6, 7, 5) Table 2: Total Participants in each Experiment Treatment Session

This experiment employed a 3x1 design, with three treatments being used across twelve sessions, with a total of 81 participants. Table 2 shows the distribution of participants among the sessions. The treatments were selected at random during each session, the uneven distribution of participants was therefore a chance occurrence. The Clingingsmith study used a 2x2 treatment, with 36 participants in each treatment (three sessions with 12 participants each). Therefore, this study has a slightly lower number of observations per treatment cell.

In recent years there has been a growing focus on the validity of statistically measured results in experimental economics (Canavari et al., 2018; Lusk and Shogren, 2007). There is extensive research exploring the existence of Type 1 errors and studies have found that researchers may be tempted to (sub)consciously inflate the significance of their results (Brodeur et al., 2016). Furthermore, there has been relatively little attention paid towards the sample size of studies and therefore Type 2 errors are often underreported (Simmons et al., 2011; Zhang and Ortmann, 2013). In order to try and limit the potential for errors in the statistical analysis of the results in this study, the Pre-Registration document (Section 3.4.1) outlined the required sample size that was expected from this study. The study will seek to replicate the power of the original study, taking in to account the differences in design between the Clingingsmith two-sided experiment and this one-sided experiment. This leads to an alpha value = 5% and a beta value of 20% (minimum power of 0.8). A medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.5) would require 51 participants per treatment. Due to time and budget constraints, the pre-registration document assumes 48 participants per treatments, giving 144 participants in total (and hence a slightly lower power value than 0.8).

The pre-registration document predicted that some issues may arise due to recruitment constraints and variation in group size. Following the first round of testing, the sample size is smaller than that which was pre-registered, which is problematic. Therefore, this paper will examine the results as a preliminary stage of the overall experiment, with further experimental sessions to take place in Autumn 2019, when more potential participants will be available.

3.4 Experiment Practicalities

3.4.1 Pre-Experiment Documentation

i) Ethical Approval Prior to the study, it was decided to seek expedited Ethical Approval for the study. The test outline was sent to the German Association for Experimental Economic Research. The experiment received approval on 05/03/2019 (no. 4uEdjbPK). A copy of the document is attached in Appendix A. ii) Pre-Registration It was also decided that the study would be pre-registered prior to the experiments being carried out. This is becoming more common in experimental economics practice and improves validity (Canavari et al., 2018). The pre-registration was carried out with AsPredicted, #23333, and a copy is attached in Appendix B.

3.4.2 Pilot Run

In advance of the full experiments being carried out, a trial experiment, or pilot was conducted in early May 2019. This allowed for a ‘dry run’ of the experiment to receive feedback and test the workings of the procedure. It is strongly recommended to carry out a pilot in experimental studies (Croson, 2002) Based on this feedback, there were a number of minor changes made to the study. 3.4.3 Payments

Payments were given in the form of a gift card from ICA (the most common Swedish supermarket). The original study, and best practice in experimental economics, suggests the use of cash, this was problematic in a Swedish university. Due to administrative burdens on both the university and the participant, it was decided that gift cards would lead to a more efficient payment process. A short survey was conducted to inquire the most desirable type of gift-card, with numerous supermarkets and various businesses including cinemas investigated. ICA supermarket was chosen as the most popular choice for participants in Uppsala. Therefore, these gift-cards would be the most commensurable with cash. Data collected during the study would support this choice, with 88% of participants indicating that the gift cards were desirable or very desirable (the remaining participants indicated neither desire nor undesirability, and no participants found the cards undesirable). Payments to participants varied between 200 and 350 SEK (~€20-30) for around 90 minutes of participation. Appendix N outlines how payments were formulated. 3.4.4 Location

The sessions took part in two locations; at Campus Ultuna, SLU and at Geocentrum, Uppsala University. Two similarly sized classrooms were used. The classrooms had similar characteristics and efforts were made to reduce environmental differences between sessions 3.4.5 Limitations

There are various general limitations in economic experiments that are present in this study. These include the potential that participants do not act truthfully, or representatively in the experiment setting (Crawford and Sobel, 1982; Duffy and Feltovich, 2002). There are also several limitations specific to this study, with many linked to a common issue; there is no experimental economics laboratory in Uppsala. This means that many logistical issues were solved on an ad hoc basis. Other limitations in this study were:

i) Potential Confounds and Experimenter Demand Effects

The experiments were carried out in two distinct locations and it was challenging to ensure consistent controls on many environmental factors. As participants were able to ask questions during sessions there was also disparity in the information received by each session (Croson, 2002). This limitation was addressed by balancing treatments within locations (to avoid confounding of treatment and place). Treatments were revealed to participants and experimenters only shortly before the live auction round (to avoid discussion of treatment-related issues at the beginning of a session and experimenter demand effects).

ii) Recruitment

Due to the limit of potential recruits (Students interested in sustainability in Uppsala), it was not possible to over-recruit and ensure each group would have eight members. This led to some variation in group sizes. Participants could have joined groups with their friends, which may have led to some groups being less randomised. Furthermore, as the experiments took place at the end of May, there were clashes with final exams presentations of master’s theses.

This limitation was managed by preparing for different group sizes in advance, with preparations made for groups between four and eight participants. The total number of participants taking part were 81 out of a potential total of 96. General Knowledge (30) and Random (28) treatments had similar numbers of participants, however Sustainability Knowledge (23) was significantly lower. This was due to smaller groups in the Sustainability Knowledge treatment and occurred by chance, given that treatments were not selected until during the session.

iii) Payments

Payments were not made in cash and therefore could potentially increase heterogeneity in the appeal of the experiment to participants. The impact of this limitation was measured during the survey and was found to have minimal effect on participants, with a high number (88%) of participants being pleased at the prospect of a gift card. 3.5 The Experiment Sequence

Below, the seven major sections of the experiment are outlined, and their incorporation justified. When ‘the original study’ is mentioned, it is referring to the experiments carried out by Clingingsmith and Sheremeta (2018). The three treatments are outlined in Part IV, and otherwise the experiment was identical for all participants. The full experiment is included in Appendixes C-M. i) Introduction

Once participants turned up for their session, they were brought to the room and seated in front of the informed consent form. This form used a similar template to the original study and was consistent with the ethical approval document. It ensured participants were aware of what was expected of them throughout the session, and that they could withdraw at any point without penalty. In accordance with ethical standards across economics, participants were not deceived at any time. Participants were forewarned that they would be making decisions that would later be publicly shared with the rest of the group.

After signing the informed consent documents, participants were given a random three-digit identification number, which would be used to collate their results throughout. Unique, three-digit ID numbers were randomly assigned to eight participants throughout the sessions in advance of all experiments. Participants were asked to respect the experiment conditions and not talk with their fellow participants or use their phone during the session. A short overview of the experiment was presented.

ii) Test Auction Round

The test auction round encourages participants to understand the concept of the experiment and ensures that the later ‘live’ auction round progresses more smoothly. “Without such safeguards [test auctions] there is little reason to believe that elicited bids will correspond to individuals’ values” (Lusk and Shogren, 2007, p. 62). This test auction can be used to test for successful randomisation across the samples and all treatments (Briz et al., 2017; Canavari et al., 2018).

The test auction round used 4.2g bars of Divine dark chocolate. This product was chosen as chocolates were used in the original study and in addition this brand displayed sustainable credentials. These chocolates are suitable for this auction because they are:

1. An excludable good. They are small and made for individual consumption and cannot be easily shared. 2. Broadly desirable across most potential participants. 3. Packaged in small discrete pieces and can therefore be purchased in large quantities. 4. Deemed to be sustainable, displaying key sustainable traits such as Organic, Vegan, Fairtrade. Divine is a cooperatively owned enterprise from Ghana.

The test round auction sheet was handed out to participants and a single bar of Divine Chocolate was given as a demonstration. Participants were informed they would receive 200 SEK at the end of the session. If they wished they could spend this money on bars of these chocolates. Once choices were made, participants were introduced to the white board to prepare the participants for the social aspects of their later purchase decisions.

The test auction gave the opportunity for participants to purchase chocolates. Nine potential prices were presented, and participants were informed that one price would be picked at random at the end of the session. Prices were between 1-9 SEK and were chosen around the suggested retail price of the product (4 SEK). Higher and lower values allowed for the estimation of willingness-to-pay and, hence, the development of demand curves. Participants could indicate how many bars they would potentially purchase at each of the prices. iii) General Knowledge Test

Prior to both knowledge tests participants were given an instructions sheet and an overview of how much each participant would earn at each rank.

The General Knowledge test was then handed out and all participants were given 10 minutes to complete it using the answer sheet provided. There were 12 questions, with multiple choice answers provided. There was one correct answer for each question, worth three points. An incorrect answer lost one point and unmarked answers left the result unchanged. If there was a tie in scores, the participant who completed the test first would be ranked higher. All questions were of medium to hard difficulty, to ensure a clear distribution of results and that the rankings were awarded an authentic status by participants.

The General Knowledge test was largely replicated from the original study, with some minor alteration. All questions were sourced from MENSA style general knowledge quizzes.

iv) Sustainability Knowledge Test

The Sustainable Knowledge test was an addition to the experiment. Questions were sourced from sulitest.org, an international educational platform used to inform and identify knowledge of the Sustainable Development Goals. There was a combination of global and Swedish-centric questions, based on current climate science and commonly discussed topics in Sustainable Development literature. Relatively difficult questions were chosen to ensure that the test would be regarded as legitimate and so that results were most likely to infer knowledge of sustainability. Rules were otherwise similar to the general knowledge test.

Following the two knowledge tests, the participants took a shorter 3-minute logic test. This is called a Cognitive Reflection Test or CRT. This was directly repeated from the original study and is regarded as a measure of impulsivity (Frederick, 2005). While participants took this test, the scores of the prior tests were collated and the session treatment was determined. v) Ranking of Participants *Treatment Applied*

This is the only part of the test that changed between the sessions. Session treatments were kept in blank envelopes and selected at random at this stage to ensure high treatment effects and that no subconscious priming occurred. Participants were then ranked based on which treatment (Random, General Knowledge or Sustainability Knowledge) was selected. The information was provided to each participant in an individual envelope to ensure privacy.

Participants were ranked either at random (RAND), by their score in the general knowledge test (GENRANK) or their score in the sustainability knowledge test (SUSRANK). Individual rankings were received in private, and participants could check how much they had earned individually using an earnings table. Therefore, the purchase of goods in the next auction round would be the first opportunity to share or display the participant’s rank to the wider group. vi) Live Auction Round

After receiving their ranks, participants were then introduced to the ‘live’ auction round. An instructions sheet was distributed as well as an example of the protein bar they could purchase in this round. For the live auction round, Swedish protein snack bars were used. These share some of the traits that the chocolate bars used in the testing round did:

1. They are a rival and excludable consumption good 2. They are packaged in discrete pieces 3. They can be deemed high quality 4. They are made locally in Sweden and are broadly deemed sustainable. In addition, the bars are KRAV certified, a popular label used to determine a sustainable production process.

Participants were reminded that these results would later be conveyed to the rest of the group. Participants were asked to share how many bars they would purchase at each of ten potential prices (ranging from 12 SEK - 28 SEK). The median price (20 SEK) was slightly lower than the bar costs

in a supermarket (24 SEK). This was similar to the procedure from the test round. Following the completion of their choices, a dice was rolled to determine the ‘session price’.

Finally, the participants were invited to the front of the room to write their purchase on the white board. This had been made explicit in the informed consent document and then repeated before this round began to ensure that participants were primed for the potentially conspicuous aspect of their consumption, and that they were not deceived or made to feel unexpectedly uncomfortable. The die was also rolled following this stage to determine the price of the chocolate from the test auction round. vii) Surveys

Participants first completed a short survey with various general demographic questions. Demographic questions were selected to determine key indicators that may describe trends within the consumption decisions, based on many of the trends found in the literature review.

The second survey was the recently developed Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire (Gericke et al., 2019). There are many different surveys of sustainability, with the New Ecological Paradigm scale being the most widely cited (Dunlap et al., 2000). This questionnaire was selected as it was developed in Sweden, it used the most recent data and allowed for the clearest pooling of results across three key sections of sustainability: knowingness, behaviour and attitudes.

The third and final survey chosen was the Swartz Attitudes Survey (Davidov et al., 2008). The results of this survey could be compared with a very large number of results and peer reviewed studies. The results of this study would provide a clear indication of the values of the participants, based on the ten dominant categories outlined by Davidov et al. (2008) and discussed during the literature review.

As participants completed the demographic survey, purchase decisions were collated and then presented on a table linked to each ID number. The participants then received their remaining earnings, rounded up to the nearest 50 SEK and in the form of ICA gift cards. This rounding up would further anonymise the results, as participants would receive common amounts of money that were unlikely to be traced to them individually. Finally, information was provided about when results would be shared and whom to contact with further queries.

4 Results

This section will examine the results from the experiment. Currently 81 participants have taken part in the study, across three treatment groups. 30 people in the General Knowledge treatment, 23 people in the Sustainability Knowledge treatment and the remaining 28 people were classified in the Random treatment. This total is lower than pre-registered number of 144 participants and 48 per treatment. Therefore, further sessions will be carried out at a later date in order to fulfil the required sample size. These results are presented as preliminary results, cautiously indicative of the final results. 4.1 Participant Characteristics

Understandably, given the method of recruitment, participants were very similar in their academic background. Over two thirds studied the same degree and a dominant majority were students at master’s level study in Uppsala, Sweden. There were a slight majority of females and a high concentration of participants were aged their mid-twenties. The group was extremely international with over 30 countries represented; around two thirds of which were from countries in the OECD, a group of countries with similar market-led economies.

Demographic Number % of Total

Female 49 60 Gender Male 30 37 Other 2 3 Mean 26.19 - Median 26 - Age (Years) Standard deviation from mean 2.95 - Oldest participant 37 - Youngest participant 21 - Nationality Distinct countries represented 33 - Participants from OECD countries 52 64 Study at Uppsala University (UU) 68 84 Education Study at Swedish Agriculture University (SLU) 13 16 Studying any master's degree 73 90 Studying Sustainable Development (MSc) 56 69

Table 3. Demographic Information of All Participants (n=81)

On average, participants registered higher scores on the General Knowledge test. There was relatively less confidence in answering the General Knowledge test, with 25% of questions left unanswered, compared to 18% of questions in the Sustainability Knowledge test.

Test Scores on Test (maximum 36)

Mean Median Minimum Maximum Standard Deviation General Knowledge 14.6 14 -5 36 7.88 Sustainability Knowledge 10.96 11 -8 27 7.81

Table 4. Participant Test Results

4.1.1 Sustainability Preferences

Table 8 displays the dietary preference of participants. Participants were much more likely to have a plant-based diet than the national average. 37% of respondents classified as either vegan or vegetarian, compared to the Swedish average of 10% (Statistica, 2018). Nearly three quarters of participants recorded that they consume meat or fish less than once a week.

Dietary Type Number % Total % Swedish Average Vegan 12 15 2 Vegetarian 18 22 7 Flexible 28 35 - (Eat fish or meat, less than once per week) Total 58 72 - (Vegan + Vegetarian + Flexible)

Table 5. Participant’s Dietary Preferences (n=81)

Table 6 displays the participants responses when asked about what factors influence their consumption decision. Participants gave the greatest importance to their own personal health and finances. Environmental and ethical implications were also very influential in the decision-making process. The labelling and classification of the food was of middle importance. Interestingly for this study, the results suggest that the opinion of friends and family was largely unimportant for participants.

Neither Factors Influencing Very Quite Important Quite Very Average Consumption Important Important nor unimportant unimportant Importance Decisions unimportant How you think it will 34 39 7 1 0 1.69 taste Your personal health 33 37 10 1 0 1.74 The cost of the food 27 45 4 3 1 1.83 The environmental impact of the 26 44 7 3 1 1.88 production method The ethical treatment 28 37 10 5 1 1.94 of animals Fairtrade label 6 36 31 6 2 2.53 Organic label (Krav) 4 38 29 7 2 2.56 What your friends or 2 13 23 22 21 3.58 family like

Table 6. Relative Importance of Factors in Influencing Food Purchase Choices of Participants

Table 11 lists the responses to the Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire. The questionnaire sought to examine how strongly participants reacted to questions linked to different aspects of sustainability. Due to the design of the questionnaire, it is possible to classify the participant’s responses across six themed groups. Consciousness refers to a deep understanding of issues and seeks to identify: Knowledge, Attitudes, and actual Behaviour linked to issues of sustainability. The broad concept of Sustainability is structured in the ‘three pillars’ of environmentalism, social awareness and economic fairness, based on the United Nations definition of Sustainable Development (Gericke et al., 2019).

Participants were a presented with 27 short statements and asked to rate how strongly they agreed with each using a 5-point Likert scale. Answers were then codified using the associated numbers 1-5, which could then provide an average score out of 5 for each question, and each group of questions. One of the listed statements was as follows:

11. “Reducing water consumption is necessary for Sustainable Development” 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither Agree nor Disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Disagree

Table 11 below presents an overview of participants average results to this questionnaire, and compares these results with the average ranking of Swedish participants in the pilot study of the questionnaire (n = 48) (Ibid.). Results suggest low variation among participants responses in all areas. Participants displayed strong support across all areas, with particularly high scores on Knowingness and Social Sustainability. Compared to the base average, participants displayed stronger support for behaviour changes and economic factors relating to sustainability.

Average Participant Swedish Average % Increase by Score (Standard Score (Standard Participants Deviation) Deviation)

Sustainability Knowingness 4.46 (0.75) 4.18 (0.95) 6.7 Sustainability Attitudes 4.21 (0.65) 4.49 (0.69) -6.2 Sustainability Behaviour 4.08 (0.97) 3.28 (1.68) 24.4

Environmental Sustainability 4.05 (0.79) 3.97 (1.23) 2.2 Social Sustainability 4.45 (0.79) 4.25 (0.94) 4.7 Economic Sustainability 4.24 (0.90) 3.73 (1.16) 13.7

Table 7. Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire Results (Maximum Score = 5.00)

4.1.2 Schwartz Survey Results

The Schwartz Survey consisted of 21 questions which were used to illicit the values and worldviews held by participants. The survey measures responses to questions eliciting 10 distinct values which participants may be motivated by. The original English statements were used, with the only modification being that the female third person ‘she’ was added, as not doing so would have been offensive in the Swedish context and among the participating group of students. The traits associated with each value are defined in Figure 8 below.

Figure 6. Definitions of Ten Value Traits from the Schwartz Theory of Values This figure displays descriptions of each value trait (Davidov et al., 2008, pg. 6)

Participants were asked to describe how closer they resembled a set statement. Example statements given to participants are listed below. Question 3 is an example of a question testing Universalism and Question 17 is an example of a question testing Power scores (participants are unaware of each question’s value meaning).

3. He/she thinks it is important that every person in the world should be treated equally. He/she believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life.

17. It is important to him/her to get respect from others. He/she wants people to do what he/she says.

A 6-point Likert scale was used, and the responses were converted to their associated number (1-6). This allowed for a numerical representation of the results and for the total responses of the 81 participants to be collated easily.

1. Very Much Like Me 2. Like Me 3. Somewhat Like Me 4. A Little Like Me 5. Not Like Me 6. Not At All Like Me

The results of the Swartz Attitudes Survey are shown in Table 12 below.

Participant Average International Average % Change from the Response Response International Average Value Trait (Standard Deviation) (Standard Deviation)

Universalism 1.51 (0.65) 2.23 (1.03) -32.29 Benevolence 1.88 (0.88) 2.15 (0.95) -12.59 Self-Direction 2.16 (1.03) 2.30 (1.15) -6.09 Stimulation 2.48 (1.19) 3.45 (1.45) -28.12 Hedonism 2.83 (1.94) 2.95 (1.40) -4.07 Security 3.14 (1.22) 2.35 (1.20) 33.62 Tradition 3.30 (1.21) 2.75 (1.35) 20 Achievement 3.41 (1.26) 3.20 (1.40) 6.56 Conformity 3.77 (1.29) 2.90 (1.35) 30 Power 4.29 (1.05) 3.65 (1.35) 17.53 Table 8. Results from the Schwartz Attitudes Survey The first column lists the ten value traits in descending order of importance to participants from the survey. Two questions represented each trait in the survey. The second column lists the aggregated results from participants (n = 81) in each value trait, with the standard error listed in parenthesis. The third column depicts the average results of the European Social Survey using the same scale (n = 39,399), with standard error listed in parenthesis. The final column lists the difference between the International Average and the Session Average, with negative results suggesting that participants were more likely to value the trait and vice-versa for positive results.

1. Universalism and Benevolence had very high scores among participants, much stronger than the international average. The low figure for standard deviation in these traits (0.65 and 0.88 respectively) indicates a higher than average level of uniformity and homogeneity among participants in these areas. Responses of these traits are highly similar to those results found among other advocates of sustainability and environmental concerns.

2. Compared to the International Averages, participants displayed a slightly greater affinity towards Stimulation (suggesting an affinity to challenges) and slightly less similarity with Security and Tradition values (suggesting a rejection of the status quo).

3. Traits of Achievement, Conformity and Power were the least attractive values to participants. Conformity was particularly lower than the international average (suggesting participants are not interested in climbing the social ladder of receiving the perceived respect of society. In particular they are happy to challenge expectations.)

The weight of evidence thus far in the psychological tests and demographic questions leads to the assumption that Ancillary Hypothesis J1 will be accepted, a crucial supposition for conspicuous consumption to occur.

J1: Participants would display strong in-group tendencies with similar results in the psychological tests.

4.2 Treatment Allocation

81 participants took part across 12 sessions with three treatments varieties, listed in T able 13 below. There were significantly fewer participants in the Sustainability Knowledge treatment. This is shown below to have had no significant impact on general consumption, but it is not known whether this may have influenced the social aspect of consumption during the second auction. In other words, group size and the Sustainability Knowledge treatment are to some extent confounded and the effect cannot be attributed with certainty to the treatment alone.

Treatment Total Sessions Total Participants (per session) Random 4 28 (7, 7, 7, 7) General Knowledge 4 30 (8, 8, 8, 6) Sustainability Knowledge 4 23 (5, 6, 7, 5)

Table 9. Participants per Treatment

Kruskal-Wallis (KW) tests have been carried out to test the successful randomisation of participants within treatment groups. The tests use data taken from the ‘test auction’ of chocolate bars, before the session treatments are applied, the rationale being that bidding behaviour before treatment should be equal (Briz et al., 2017). The test results report a relatively random distribution of consumption among the sessions. This ensures that there were no treatment groups with large proportions of participants who would generally bid differently in an auction. The tests were repeated with all ‘null results’ removed and found similar results. These results mean that any large discrepancies found following the treatment effects can reasonably be assumed to have been caused by the treatment. 4.3 Statistical Results

Two statistical procedures were carried out on the treatment results. An Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression on the full sample of 81 participants (Table 10) and a TOBIT model which accounts for censoring of 26 zero bids which in this context refer to participants who did not purchase protein bars at any price (Table 11)

OLS (n=81) 1 2 3 Average Average Average number of expenditure fraction of

bars (SEK) income demanded spent Constant (n=81) -0.786* -14.40* 0.0814** (0.4) (7.32) (0.027) General Knowledge 0.715* 12.94* 0.149* Treatment (n=30) (0.37) (6.75) (0.079) Sustainability Knowledge Treatment 0.0892 1.409 0.0483 (n=23) (0.24) (3.95) (0.054)

Table 10. OLS Regression Analysis of Treatment Effects

TOBIT (26 left-censored, 55 non-zero) 1 2 3 Average number of Average expenditure Average fraction of

bars demanded (SEK) income spent Constant (n=81) -1.841** -33.71** -0.327 (0.56) (10.4) (0.059) General Knowledge Treatment 1.235** 22.49** 0.232** (n=30) (0.57) (10.5) (0.11) Sustainability Knowledge 0.489 8.735 0.113 Treatment (n=23) (0.44) (7.64) (0.094)

Table 11. TOBIT Regression Analysis of Treatment Effects Regression model results for two treatment groups: General Knowledge and Sustainability Knowledge. Constant consists of an average of all participants. Robust standard errors are clustered for sessions and listed in parenthesis next to each result. The statistical procedures allow for the testing of the hypotheses and the investigating the likelihood that results happened by chance. One * denotes a result with p<0.10 and two ** after the figure denotes a result with p<0.05, significant and strongly significant results respectively.

Using the results from the statistical tests outlined in Tables 10 and 11, it is possible to examine the differences between the participants who were ranked by their status (General Knowledge or Sustainability Knowledge) and an average of all participants (described as Constant). By comparing each of the treatments against the constant it is possible to check if there are statistically significant differences. The design of the experiment means that it is possible to determine the participants demand for protein bars at each possible price, not only the price that they paid. The figures therefore show not just what was actually purchased, but rather an average of what participants would have purchased, given any potential price.

A) General Knowledge (GENKNOWTREAT)

Across the whole population (OLS), participants ranked by general knowledge bought an additional 0.7 bars, paid an additional 12.9 SEK and spent around 15% more as a proportion of the income, compared to the average participant. These were recorded as marginally statistically significant results (p < 0.10).

When counting only those who made some purchases (Tobit), the figures are larger. Compared to the average participant, participants ranked by general knowledge bought an additional 1.2 bars, paid an additional 22.5 SEK and spent around 23% more. These were recorded as strongly statistically significant results (p < 0.05).

B) Sustainability Knowledge (SUSKNOWTREAT)

Across the whole population (OLS), participants ranked by sustainability knowledge bought around the average number of bars, spent about the average amount (1.4 SEK more) and spent slightly more (5%) of their income on bars than the average.

When accounting for those who made purchases only, there are slightly bigger differences recorded by those ranked by sustainability knowledge. On average, participants bought an additional half of a bar (0.5), spent 8.7 SEK more and spent around 11% more of their

income than the average. Neither set of results in the sustainability knowledge treatment were regarded as statistically significant. 4.4 Review of Main Hypotheses

4.4.1 Hypothesis One

It is now possible to examine the two main hypothesis of this study. First, we will examine H1, if consumption is higher among all participants ranked by knowledge (General Knowledge and Sustainability Knowledge pooled), compared to participants ranked at random.

H1: Consumption will be higher in Rank treatments than in Random treatments Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by all Ranked Participants and Unranked Participants (Random) 28 SEK 26 SEK 24 SEK 22 SEK 20 SEK 18 SEK 16 SEK 14 SEK 12 SEK

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded All Ranked Random

Figure 7. Demand for Protein Bars by Ranked and Unranked Participants This graph demonstrates the clear trend found across the data. At each price level, demand increased when ranking treatments were applied. If we recall the shape of the graph used by Clingingsmith and Sheremata (Figure 9), we can compare clear similarities.

Figure 8. Demand Curve for Chocolates by Treatment (Clingingsmith and Sheremata, 2008)

The original study by Clingingsmith and Sheremata graphically displays demand in each of four treatments. The line on the far right (Rank-Public) is comparable to the General Knowledge treatment bar depicted in Figure 10 above.

We can examine these results in more detail by referring to Table 14 below.

Random All Rank All Rank

Baseline Average of Change (Change from (Change from SEK all Participants from Baseline) Baseline) n = 81 Random

n = 29 n = 52 28 0.26 0.07 (-73%) 0.36 (38%) 422% 26 0.26 0.07 (-73%) 0.36 (38%) 422% 24 0.32 0.14 (-56%) 0.42 (31%) 200% 22 0.42 0.24 (-43%) 0.52 (24%) 116% 20 0.58 0.44 (-24%) 0.65 (12%) 44% 18 0.74 0.52 (-30%) 0.87 (18%) 67% 16 0.99 0.62 (-37%) 1.19 (20%) 91% 14 1.31 0.86 (-34%) 1.56 (19%) 85% 12 1.85 1.48 (-20%) 2.06 (11%) 39%

Table 12. Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Pooled Treatment Type The first column of this table shows the price of protein bars in each row. The second column displays an average of all participants demand. The third column displays the demand of participants within the Random Treatment group, with the difference between this figure and the baseline average in parenthesis. The fourth column shows the average demand for all Ranked participants (General and Sustainable Knowledge), with the difference between this figure and the baseline average in parenthesis. The final column displays the difference between all Ranked participants and Random participants, this displays the impact of conspicuous consumption in this study.

As prices increase, overall demand falls. This occurs within each treatment and across all treatments. This is expected in classical economic theory. At each price level, demand is higher among ranked participants than those in the Random treatment. The results of the final column demonstrate clearly that conspicuous consumption has been recorded. At low price levels the increased level of consumption is close to 50%, and at higher price levels the increase grows dramatically. Based on the literature review, it is safe to assume that a form of status has been conferred by these rankings based on test results. This status is responsible for the increase in demand.

H1: Consumption will be higher in Rank treatments than in Random treatments

This hypothesis is accepted. In general, demand was low, however when participants have been ranked demand increases at each price level. When ranking treatments are combined (as in Figure 12), it is possible to view a clear distinction between Rank treatments and Random treatments. These results suggest that this experiment will successfully replicate the results found in the same part of the study by Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018).

4.4.2 Hypothesis Two

With regards to the secondary hypothesis, that sustainability ranking would lead to greater effects than general knowledge treatment. H2: Consumption will be higher in Rank Sustainability treatments than Rank General Knowledge treatments

Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Treatment and Price

28 SEK

26 SEK

24 SEK

22 SEK

20 SEK Price 18 SEK

16 SEK

14 SEK

12 SEK

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Quantity of Protein Bars Demanded

Sustainability Knowledge Random General Knowledge

Figure 9. Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Treatment Type and Price This graph depicts the demand for protein bars at each potential price. The top bar at each price (purple) shows the results for participants ranked by Sustainable Knowledge treatment. The middle bar (blue) shows participants ranked at random. The lowest bar (orange) shows the results for participants ranked by their scores in the General Knowledge Test.

We can examine these results in greater detail by comparing the results in Table 15 below. The table separates out the two ranked treatments, with Sustainability Knowledge and General Knowledge results now displayed separately.

Sustainability General Baseline Average Random Knowledge Knowledge of all Participants (Change from SEK (Change from (Change from n = 81 Baseline) Baseline) Baseline) n = 29 n = 22 n = 30

28 0.26 0.07 (-73%) 0.14 (-46%) 0.53 (104%) 26 0.26 0.07 (-73%) 0.14 (-46%) 0.53 (104%) 24 0.32 0.14 (-56%) 0.18 (-44%) 0.60 (88%) 22 0.42 0.24 (-43%) 0.23 (-45%) 0.73 (74%) 20 0.58 0.44 (-24%) 0.32 (-45%) 0.90 (55%) 18 0.74 0.52 (-30%) 0.59 (-20%) 1.07 (45%) 16 0.99 0.62 (-37%) 0.77 (-22%) 1.50 (52%) 14 1.31 0.86 (-34%) 1.05 (-20%) 1.93 (47%) 12 1.85 1.48 (-20%) 1.45 (-22%) 2.50 (35%)

Table 13. Average Number of Protein Bars Demanded by Price and by Treatment This table displays the average number of protein bars demanded by each treatment group at each potential price. All treatment groups are separated, and specific treatment effects can be analysed.

1. Compared to the baseline average, participants ranked by General Knowledge demanded more at every price. At lower price levels, the increase of demand is heightened. 2. Participants ranked at Random and by Sustainability Knowledge demanded less than average at every price.

In order to distinguish the impact of the treatment effects even further, it is possible to compare the demand of participants in each status-inducing treatment with the demand of participants ranked at random.

Sustainability Knowledge General Knowledge SEK Change from Random Change from Random

28 100% 657% 26 100% 657% 24 29% 328% 22 -5% 204% 20 -27% 105% 18 13% 106% 16 24% 141% 14 22% 74% 12 -2% 69%

Table 14. Change in Demand of Status-Induced Treatments Compared to Random Treatment This table displays the average difference in demand between participants ranked by knowledge tests, and those participants who are ranked at random. It seeks to demonstrate the impact of the source of the ranking being meaningful.

1. The results point towards a clear demonstration of conspicuous consumption when participants are ranked by General Knowledge. Participants exposed to this treatment demanded more than anyone else at every price level. 2. Participants in Sustainability Knowledge treatments however exhibited some small instances of additional consumption but not consistently so. Therefore, it cannot currently be assumed that ranking based on knowledge of sustainability has an impact on consumption habits.

H2: Consumption will be higher in Rank Sustainability treatments than Rank General Knowledge treatments

This hypothesis is currently not accepted. There appears to be a noticeable difference between consumption trends by participants in Rank Sustainability and Rank General Knowledge. A caveat to this prediction is that the Sustainable Knowledge treatment has more than 20% fewer participants than General Knowledge and Random treatments. This may have reduced the potency of social pressure on participants, as there were fewer peers in the room when participants were making consumption decisions and also is a confound that curtails a clean identification. Alternatively, this could suggest that the status conferred by sustainability is markedly different to that conferred by general knowledge. This will be deliberated further in Section 5. Discussion.

Finally, with regards to the remaining ancillary hypothesis J2, there is not sufficient data at this stage to suggest significant findings. Early results point towards slight support for this hypothesis but not significantly so.

J2: Conspicuous Consumption will be higher than average among men than women.

5 Discussion and Recommendations

Through analysis of the results, it is possible to accept the main hypothesis (H1) that participants would engage in a form of conspicuous consumption when given a ranking. This was a replication of similar results found in the study carried out by Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018). It is also possible accept the ancillary hypothesis (J1) that participants share a common value system. The second main hypothesis (H2) has not received sufficient evidence to be supported at this stage, nor has the ancillary hypothesis (J2). The results are discussed below before recommendations for policy makers and future research are mentioned. 5.1 Group Dynamics

By examining the sustainability preferences of the participants of the experiment, it was possible to determine how similar their worldviews were, particularly participant’s stance regarding sustainability issues. This is important as strong group homogeneity is suggested to be essential for instances of conspicuous consumption to occur. Following the literature review, particularly Bourdieu’s work on group dynamics and cohesion (Bourdieu, 1984), it was predicted that individuals from a shared academic background would form similar worldviews and have value systems distinct from the wider population. This prediction proved to be accurate, with dietary habits and value systems showing concentrated similarities, distinct from national trends. With regards to dietary preferences and the Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire, the results suggest strong pro-environmental knowledge and preferences, perhaps unsurprising given a majority of participants were studying sustainability.

Results from the Schwartz Survey suggest that participants held value sets associated with care for other people and other organisms (high scores for Universalism and Benevolence), supporting evidence found in the literature review that people interested in sustainability would exhibit these traits (Kareklas et al., 2014; Vermeir and Verbeke, 2008). In particular, these altruistic value traits have been specifically linked to conspicuous consumption of products linked to sustainability (Griskevicius et al., 2010; Milinski et al., 2002). The results suggest that participants were either not impacted by the opinions of others or, perhaps more likely, are unaware of how they are influenced by factors of status or reputation. The low Swartz Value score for Power suggests that participants are relatively uninterested in social status and prestige. When asked whether they took the opinion of friends or family into account, participants gave this factor the lowest importance level. The later results of this study (backed by evidence collected in the literature review) confirm consumption decisions are influenced by social norms. These are potentially subconscious actions, given participants reported low awareness of the potency of social influences.

When asked which other factors participants thought were important in influencing their behaviour, the personal nature of food was highlighted, with taste, personal health and cost leading the factors influencing consumption choices. Factors linked to individual’s own knowledge of sustainability (environmental impact of food and treatment of animals) were more important than standardised labels such as KRAV or Fairtrade. This suggests that for participants, confidence in food labelling systems is secondary to their own knowledge of sustainability, and is consistent with recent studies in food labelling in Sweden (Irandoust, 2016). These results contributed to the acceptance of ancillary hypothesis J1, which is vital for the main hypothesis of conspicuous consumption to occur.

Finally, the results from the two knowledge tests can be compared. Participants scored higher average scores on the test of general knowledge compared to sustainability knowledge. This could suggest that the sustainability knowledge test was relatively more difficult than the general knowledge test. It may also suggest a degree of overconfidence by participants, as 25% of all questions were left blank in the general knowledge test, compared to just 18% of all questions being left blank in the sustainable knowledge test. If participants were confident in their own knowledge of sustainability issues, they were more likely to attempt difficult questions in the sustainability knowledge test. leading to more incorrect answers and increased negative scoring). 5.2 Inefficiency and Wastefulness

The results of this study currently support the primary hypothesis, H1, that conspicuous consumption does occur. This is consistent with evidence collected during the literature review (Griskevicius et al., 2010; Heffetz, 2010; Mason, 1998). The impacts of this phenomenon are often described in terms of the economic implications and psychological implications, decision welfare and emotional welfare respectively (Benjamin et al., 2012; Kahneman et al., 1999). In analysis of their study Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) discuss the impact of conspicuous consumption in economic terms. The additional consumption occurring is described as a loss of welfare and is depicted as a shaded wedge in the graph shown in Figure 11 below.

Figure 10. Welfare Loss due to Conspicuous Consumption The basis of this graph is a classical economic model of supply and demand. Curve D displays the standard demand for goods at the market price at P. The existence of status signalling leads to a shift in the curve, towards D’, and at the same price, there is a higher quantity demanded at P’. The wedge, ‘welfare loss’ represents an inefficiency created by this shift in demand and represents waste through over-consumption. In terms of sustainability, conspicuous consumption therefore results in more resources being used than is otherwise necessary. It is an inefficient use of income and contributes to an increased ecological footprint.

The recording of inefficiency is consistent with previous economic studies and is an example of a market failure. Market failures such as these are often rectified by introducing a Pigouvian tax or general consumption tax; which raise the market price in order to reduce overall demand (Frank, 2008). However, this will not necessarily reduce the proportion of inefficiency but rather reduce the total amount demanded. While this would reduce gross levels of waste, it risks unfairly targeting consumers at the lowest end of the income spectrum, as consumption taxes are often regarded as being regressive (Caspersen and Metcalf, 1993; Creedy, 1998; Decoster et al., 2010).

In the context of global sustainability goals, it is essential to recognise that the inefficiency detailed in the graph does not merely exist in a closed economic system, sitting apart from society and the biosphere. Instead, the economy is embedded in the biosphere and any inefficiencies are therefore wasting critical biomass and energy in the system (Daly et al., 1994). To relate this market failure to real-world consequences, we can speculate what would happen to resources and waste if levels of consumption were lower than they are now. This study found an increase in consumption of between 15-23% when participants were ranked by status (this is a relatively small increase compared to consumption increases found by other studies such as: Charles et al. (2009) – 13-60%, Ordabayeva and Chandon, (2011) – 32%, Clingingsmith and Sheremata (2018) – 200%). Given the specific nature of each study, an exact figure of over-consumption is impossible to extrapolate across the wider European consumer market, but in can be reasonably assumed that conspicuous consumption does increase consumption in some way. A small reduction of consumer based consumption (food, drink and other consumable goods) of 0.5% could result in 45.5 million tonnes of waste being eliminated on a yearly basis, or 90 kg less per EU citizen (Eurostat, 2018).

In addition to physical factors, Conspicuous consumption is frequently analysed in terms of the psychological impact of competitiveness. There are strong links suggesting a significant association between consumption and subjective happiness or wellbeing (Winkelmann, 2012). Given the relative nature of consumption, this is likely to result in reduced utility due to an increasingly competitive race to have more than others. The “Keeping up with the Joneses” phenomenon results in an spiral of increasing consumption and insatiability and often results in overall net losses to utility (Benjamin et al., 2012; Layard, 2006; Ordabayeva and Chandon, 2011). 5.3 Sustainability and (In)Conspicuous (Non)Consumption

The study does not currently support the second hypothesis (H2) that sustainability-induced status would exhibit signs of conspicuous consumption for a sustainable product. This may be solely due to the anomalous sample size of the sustainability knowledge treatment; more experiments are required to increase the sample size to allow for further analysis. However, it is possible to make some tentative assumptions at this stage. In addition, adding another treatment arm of offering the purchase of an otherwise comparable but less sustainable product could yield important insights on how product characteristics and status display may interact.

The results suggest that the whole population of participants were consistent in displaying low motivation by status or personal achievement. Despite these consistent traits, only one treatment group engaged in conspicuous consumption. This suggests that pre-existing values alone do not offer a strong indication of whether conspicuous consumption will occur, and instead prevailing social factors are influential. Furthermore, additional consumption was not solely the result of all forms of status ranking. Instead the effect can be narrowly identified as resulting from ranking based on status linked to general knowledge scores. Ranking by sustainability knowledge therefore, resulted in either a passive or an active impact on participants.

If the impact of the sustainable treatment is largely passive, it would follow that sustainability- induced status does not encourage signals of competitiveness or induce status consumption in participants. This would be consistent with the idea that people with certain value sets (high altruism and low egoist scores) are less likely to be influenced by status consumption when primed by

sustainability knowledge. This is supported by evidence within the literature review, often accompanied by evidence that high values of power and achievement are correlated with higher levels of consumption (Han and Shavitt, 1994; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Sharma and Bansal, 2013). The psychological tests in this study suggested that all participants had broadly low motivation by power, however the fact that some participants would later engage in conspicuous consumption suggests that they were all susceptible to social influences and therefore the impact of the sustainability knowledge treatment may in fact be active.

If the impact of the sustainable treatment is active, it may suggest that ranking by sustainability encourages participants to actively reduce their consumption (reduced in comparison to other forms of rank induced status). Ranking by sustainability knowledge could have acted as a prime for sustainability behaviour. Therefore, participants may have been more likely to reduce their overall consumption demand. Non-consumption by individuals with relatively high status within a community has been recognised in a number of studies (Brisman, 2009; Portwood-Stacer, 2012; Southerton et al., 2004). Elizabeth Currid-Halkett's "Theory of the Aspirational Class" (2017) suggests that highly ranked individuals may seek to distinguish themselves by engaging in highly cultured, or knowledgeable acts. This is reminiscent of Bourdieu’s theory of group distinction and may be reflective of a movement among individuals with high knowledge of sustainability towards a conspicuous rejection of consumerism.

5.4 Recommendations for Policy Makers and Further Research

We can now return to the original research question and begin by exploring the evidence we have gathered in response to each of the three sub-questions (SQa, SQb, SQc) below. Suggestions for further research are provided.

SQa: How distinctive are individuals who are exhibit interest in sustainability?

The study found evidence that a strong ‘in-group’ dynamic existed among students interested in sustainability. Participants displayed distinct dietary trends and value traits, indicating specific interest in environmental and social justice. Further research could determine if this was due to the program attracting a like-minded pool of applicants, or if these traits were the result of strong social norms developed during their studies. Were the participants already displaying signs of their value traits before they met their peers? Furthermore, it would be interesting to discuss the cause and effect of these values traits – Does an altruistic worldview lead an individual to an interest in sustainability? or, does an interest in sustainability foster an altruistic mindset? These questions could be examined by comparing the results of first- and second-year students and observing differences, assuming that developing a set of shared values is a longer process.

The strength of the group identity has an impact on the reinforcement of values and the effectiveness of implicit social pressures. Crucially, for a form of conspicuous sustainability to take hold, this research suggests that a distinct in-group mentality is necessary. These results may be used to encourage more sustainable behaviour among the wider population. As behaviour is strongly influenced by individual values, then teaching sustainability referring to a strong base of universal, altruistic values may be more impactful than teaching sustainable behaviour alone. Furthermore, policies which help

reinforce ‘sustainable’ group identities would provide a strong motivation and internal pressure to maintain pro-environmental behaviour.

SQb: How are individual purchases influenced by social status signalling?

This research suggests that social status signalling results in conspicuous consumption. The effect does not appear to be influenced by the worldview of the individual. Instead, social status linked to general knowledge was found to be the most significant indicator on conspicuous consumption. This phenomenon may lead to higher than average consumption. This study is consistent with various prior studies which find that social status signalling results in increased levels of individual consumption. This results in a large increase in inefficiency, and a waste of finite natural resources and energy used in the creation and distribution of the goods. In terms of sustainability, the increase of resource use is primarily a problem. However, there is growing evidence that this phenomenon may lead to an increase in more sustainable consumption trends.

SQc: Does ‘sustainability knowledge’ illicit the same impact on status as more established forms of status, elicited through measures of intelligence?

At this stage it does not appear that sustainability-induced status, or ranking based on knowledge of sustainability issues, results in an increase of consumption levels. There is no evidence to suggest that the competitive aspect of conspicuous consumption is triggered by acknowledgement of sustainability knowledge. It may illicit a small impact on consumption decisions, but it has potential to dampen the otherwise significant impact of ranking based on knowledge. It is impossible to infer from this data alone, but there is potential that sustainability-induced status may be responsible for an active reduction of consumption levels.

For future studies, it would be interesting to redesign this study to examine the tentative results of this study: Strong interest in sustainability and associated social pressure results to a decline in consumption. Further questions could explore whether a strong interest in sustainability leads to a decline in overall consumption. If so, this could have implications for the idea of green growth, or green consumerism. If pro-sustainable value systems are linked to a reduction in consumption, then there is an inconsistency with companies or products which attempt to utilise sustainability values in order to sell more products. If governments were to promote sustainability consciousness across society, then it may not always be consistent with the promotion of green growth or sustainable business.

RQ1. How can governments and/or policy makers utilise the social aspect of consumption in order to meet pressing sustainability needs?

The results of this research reiterate the results of a large and consistent body of research; there is a social aspect to consumption. This is important, as it raises the potential that social pressure could be utilised in order to influence consumption, either by switching to ‘greener’ products or by reducing overall consumption, thereby reducing waste. The potential to utilise existing social status systems to promote sustainability purposes is very appealing. It builds upon the idea of the habitus, introduced by Pierre Bourdieu (1984), whereby social processes such as consumption are neither the sole construct of an individual nor completely influenced by institutions. This means that the responsibility to transition to a sustainable future is not left solely with the individual or governments. Instead, behaviours have

been shown to co-evolve from a dynamic origin of groups, institutions and multiple layers of social interaction, with all stakeholders (and social structures) bearing a portion of the responsibility.

Social pressures leading to increased sustainability have a strong potential operating as a catalyst to further future sustainable actions. The ‘foot in the door effect’ is a well-studied phenomenon which finds that one small preliminary action is often followed by more influential actions further along the road (Freedman and Fraser, 1966). Small initial actions which are instigated by social pressure, may lead to a ‘snowball’ of increasing occurrences of sustainable behaviour. If this was to be recorded on a wide scale, then the impact would be substantial (Truelove et al., 2014).

While it may be possible to encourage specific social pressures to consume more sustainable products, the nature of conspicuous consumption suggests that there may be limits to how widespread the success of this approach can be. Some forms of conspicuous consumption exist solely because there is a degree of exclusivity attached to the products. When support for the products becomes common, there is no longer the same prestige attached and therefore demand may fall. For example, the prestige attached to an organic apple will slowly be reduced as the organic apple becomes more commonplace. It may be that organic apples become ubiquitous in this situation but there may be a risk that the popularity of a product hastens its decline, as in the case of consumer fads.

There are further potential drawbacks to overt signs of pro-environmental behaviour. These include the potential that ‘moral licensing’ may occur, when individuals become comfortable with their own level of sustainable behaviour and subsequently reduce their impact in other areas (Gholamzadehmir et al., 2019; Truelove et al., 2014). This complacency is particularly troubling as conspicuous consumption does not occur when consumption occurs in private (Clingingsmith and Sheremeta, 2018). Therefore, it will have no reinforcing effect when individuals are making decisions in private, for example, making purchases online.

Finally, the potential for social pressure to remove a negative (rather than add a positive) externality could be harnessed. With regards to sustainable consumption, this could entail focusing on a reduction in overall consumption, in addition to promotion of green products. This approach could build on the success of social campaigns used to reduce other negative externalities, often used in health care. One approach which recorded impressive results has involved the stigmatising of tobacco smoking across the North and Western Europe (Castaldelli‐Maia et al., 2016). Over the last thirty years, public health campaigns have aimed to attach a sense of social stigma to the consumption of cigarettes, harnessing social pressures to reduce overall tobacco consumption. This approach was introduced alongside more classical government-led measures such as increased taxation and prohibition. The results have been striking, with much lower prevalence of smoking recorded in various countries operating the holistic approach towards tobacco products. Various medical and psychological studies have examined the effective role that social stigma has played in discouraging tobacco consumption, often with increasing levels of personal regret, the internalising of guilt and the production of new norms related to smoking in public (Copeland, 2003; Evans-Polce et al., 2015; Fong et al., 2004; Lee and Paek, 2012).

A large-scale public health campaign directly to reduce consumption may be unlikely, but increasing stigma attached to waste is a potential side effect of increasing education and knowledge of sustainability issues. The growing prevalence of Flygskam, or flight shame, in Sweden is a prime example of this. Perceived guilt attached to airplane emissions has encouraged many Swedes to switch to rail travel or not fly at all (SJ, 2019). The potential for a broader konsumtionskam, or consumption shame movement is large and untapped by policy makers.

6 Conclusion

For over one century, academics have understood that social pressure has a strong impact on consumption. Often this impact has been found to increase levels of consumption, as first outlined by Thorstein Veblen’s analysis of the leisure class in the late 19th century. Over the course of the 20th century, socio-economic trends have ensured that consumption influenced by status is no longer the preserve of the very wealthy. Production of consumable goods has increased, income levels have risen, and the increasing segmentation of society described by Pierre Bourdieu have all contributed to more frequent displays of conspicuous consumption.

The latest climate reports by the United Nations and climate scientists around the world have reiterated what was known in 1899, that aspects of human consumption are wasteful, specifically tendencies in the Global North to over-consume. This is seriously damaging the environment in which we live. Therefore, it is essential that current trends of consumption are changed. Utilising the existing phenomenon of conspicuous consumption may prove to be a useful way of encouraging this.

This study is on course to find that when individuals are ascribed a relative status within a group, they are more likely to consume more. By encouraging this phenomenon there is potential to encourage pro-sustainable forms of consumption, perhaps by encouraging individuals to buy local or buy organic. Furthermore, these results could be developed further to find whether the reverse may be true also; that by removing competitively induced status, it may possible to reduce levels of consumption. This may occur by removing superfluous consumption linked to broadcasting individual status. While this could be most effectively done by removing all competitive forms of status, the scale of impact this would have on contemporary socio-economic systems make this unfeasible and unlikely. Instead, and given that some form of competition is seemingly inevitable in society, there is potential in modifying the manner in which competition occurs and how status is distributed among society.

Policy makers could utilise these findings through a ‘carrot and stick’ approach of incentives and disincentives. Public organisations could be organised to support and laud individuals who have taken part in sustainable actions, such as sustainable consumption. Methods of teaching and other educational practises could be harnessed to promote altruistic value traits and pro-sustainable behaviours. Concurrently, public information campaigns could discourage overtly wasteful actions, seeking to trigger the impacts of social stigma and encourage sustainable non-consumption. Individuals would not seek status through consuming more but could instead be motivated to consume less. Social systems alone will not lead to the promotion of sustainable consumption or even the reduction of wasteful consumption; only in conjunction with a series of institutional policies can status be utilised effectively. A holistic approach from government and individuals can harnessing the potential of the social habitus envisaged by Pierre Bourdieu.

The potential of the habitus is in the subconscious manner in which it operates, created by government, nor individuals, but recreated by society. This interplay of agency and structure has the potential to encourage sweeping changes without creating social unrest. “If we grant that symbolic systems are social products that contribute to making the world, that they do not simply mirror social relations but help constitute them, then one can, within limits, transform the world by transforming its representation” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, pg. 14).

7 Acknowledgements

The work in this paper would not have been possible for the support of a great many people and institutions who assisted its progress. Above all, I should thank the Swedish education system, which through the structures of the European Union has allowed me to spend two years learning and developing my ideas. The potential and promise of European integration will stay with me throughout my life.

In the research for the experiment, I reached out to David Clingingsmith and Roman M. Sheremata from Case Western Reserve University, USA and Chapman University, USA respectively. They generously offered source material which allowed me to closely replicate their study.

The preparation for this study could not have occurred without ten ‘guinea-pigs’ who took part in the test run of the experiment at SLU; particularly Torry, who provided expert feedback which would be incorporated in the final experiment. The experiments then required 81 active and inquisitive students in Uppsala whose time allowed such extensive data to be compiled.

The economics department of SLU hosted me throughout this year. This is also where my Subject Reviewer, Jacob Dalgaard Christensen was based. Jacob was an integral part of the study team, generously offering me his advice and recommendations. He gave up several afternoons to sit in a classroom and run the experiment with me.

My own school in Uppsala University, the Department for Earth Sciences, provided me with assistance and a base for the experiments to take place on campus. Malgorzata Blicharska - Gosia - in particular, has offered a huge amount of support and guidance throughout the process. Her strong work ethic and ability to answer emails at midnight on a Sunday helped me enormously.

A special thanks is owed to my supervisor, Jens Rommel. Jens first suggested that I may find the Clingingsmith and Sheremata paper of interest and was integral for me developing the research question finding a blend of economics and sustainable economics

Finally, I thank my family and close friends for the support they have offered in this process. I am very grateful for the love and support I have received from them all.

8 References

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organisational. Behavioural. Human. Decision. Processes., Theories of Cognitive Self-Regulation 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749- 5978(91)90020-T

Bellezza, S., Paharia, N., Keinan, A., 2017. Conspicuous Consumption of Time: When Busyness and Lack of Leisure Time Become a Status Symbol. J. Consumption. Res. 44, 118–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw076

Benjamin, D.J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M.S., Rees-Jones, A., 2012. What Do You Think Would Make You Happier? What Do You Think You Would Choose? Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 2083–2110. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.5.2083

BIT, 2019. Behavioural Insights Team, UK [WWW Document]. URL https://www.bi.team/about-us/ (accessed 8.15.19).

Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L.J., 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago press.

Brisman, A., 2009. It Takes Green to Be Green: Environmental Elitism, Ritual Displays, and Conspicuous Non-Consumption. N. D. Law Rev. 85, 329.

Briz, T., Drichoutis, A.C., Rodolfo M. Nayga, J., 2017. Randomization to treatment failure in experimental auctions: The value of data from training rounds. J. Behaviour. Exp. Econ. 71, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2017.09.004

Brodeur, A., Lé, M., Sangnier, M., Zylberberg, Y., 2016. Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 8, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150044

Bronner, F., Hoog, R. de, 2018. Conspicuous consumption and the rising importance of experiential purchases: Int. J. Mark. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785317744667

Brundtland, G.H., 1987. Our Common Future—Call for Action. Environmental. Conservation. 14, 291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900016805

Camerer, C.F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Almenberg, J., Altmejd, A., Chan, T., Heikensten, E., Holzmeister, F., Imai, T., Isaksson, S., Nave, G., Pfeiffer, T., Razen, M., Wu, H., 2016. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science 351, 1433–1436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf0918

Canavari, M., Drichoutis, A.C., Lusk, J.L., Nayga, M., 2018. How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances 62.

Canterbery, E.R., 1999. Thorstein Veblen and The Great Gatsby. J. Econ. Issues 33, 297–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1999.11506159

Caspersen, E., Metcalf, G., 1993. Is A Value Added Tax Progressive? Annual Versus Lifetime Incidence Measures (Working Paper No. 4387). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w4387

Castaldelli‐Maia, J.M., Ventriglio, A., Bhugra, D., 2016. Tobacco smoking: From ‘glamour’ to ‘stigma’. A comprehensive review. Psychiatry Clin. Neuroscience. 70, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12365

Charles, K.K., Hurst, E., Roussanov, N., 2009. Conspicuous Consumption and Race. Q. J. Econ. 124, 425–467. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.2.425

Clingingsmith, D., Sheremeta, R.M., 2018. Status and the demand for visible goods: experimental evidence on conspicuous consumption. Exp. Econ. 21, 877–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-017-9556-x

Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., 2000. Research Methods in Education. Httplst-Iiepiiep- Unescoorgcgi-Binwwwi32exeinepidoc1int2000011160100.

Conant, J.B., 1951. Science and Common Sense. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Copeland, L., 2003. An exploration of the problems faced by young women living in disadvantaged circumstances if they want to give up smoking: can more be done at general practice level? Fam. Pract. 20, 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmg410

Correia, A., Kozak, M., Reis, H., 2016. Conspicuous Consumption of the Elite: Social and Self- Congruity in Tourism Choices. J. Travel Res. 55, 738–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287514563337

Crawford, V.P., Sobel, J., 1982. Strategic Information Transmission. Econometrica 50, 1431–1451. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913390

Creedy, J., 1998. Are Consumption Taxes Regressive? [WWW Document]. Aust. Econ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8462.00057

Croson, R., 2002. Why and How to Experiment: Methodologies from Experimental Economics Symposium: Empirical and Experimental Methods in Law. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2002, 921– 946.

Currid-Halkett, E., 2017. The sum of small things: a theory of the aspirational class, Edition: Elizabeth Currid-Halkett. ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Daly, H.E., Cobb, J.B., Cobb, C.W., 1994. For the common good: redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future, 2. ed. ed. Beacon Press, Boston.

Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., Schwartz, S.H., 2008. Bringing Values Back In: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries. Public Opinion. Q. 72, 420–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn035

de Groot, J., Steg, L., 2007. General Beliefs and the Theory of Planned Behavior: The Role of Environmental Concerns in the TPB. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37, 1817–1836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x

Decoster, A., Loughrey, J., O’Donoghue, C., Verwerft, D., 2010. How regressive are indirect taxes? A microsimulation analysis for five European countries. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 29, 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20494

Dettmann, R.L., Dimitri, C., 2009. Who’s Buying Organic Vegetables? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Consumers. J. Food Prod. Mark. 16, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454440903415709

Duffy, J., Feltovich, N., 2002. Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? An Experimental Comparison of Observation and Cheap Talk. Games Econ. Behaviour. 39, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.2001.0892

Dunlap, R.E., Liere, K.D.V., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176

European Commission, 2018. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the European Council. The EU and the Paris Climate Agreement: Taking stock of progress at Katowice COP (required under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union level relevant to climate change and repealing Decision No 280/2004/EC).

Eurostat, 2018. Waste Statistics- Eurostat [WWW Document]. URL https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/environment/waste (accessed 7.5.19).

Evans-Polce, R.J., Castaldelli-Maia, J.M., Schomerus, G., Evans-Lacko, S.E., 2015. The downside of tobacco control? Smoking and self-stigma: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 145, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.026

Feltovich, N., Harbaugh, R., To, T., 2001. Too Cool for School? Signalling and Countersignalling (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 272593). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.

Fong, G.T., Hammond, D., Laux, F.L., Zanna, M.P., Cummings, K.M., Borland, R., Ross, H., 2004. The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine Tobacco. Res. 6, S341– S351. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200412331320743

Frank, R.H., 2008. Should public policy respond to positional externalities? J. Public Econ., Special Issue: Happiness and Public Economics 92, 1777–1786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.03.001

Frederick, S., 2005. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

Freedman, J.L., Fraser, S.C., 1966. Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552

Galbraith, J.K., 1999. The affluent society (1958). Can. Penguin Books 17.

Galí, J., 1994. Keeping up with the Joneses: Consumption Externalities, Portfolio Choice, and Asset Prices. J. Money Credit Bank. 26, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/2078030

Gericke, N., Pauw, J.B., Berglund, T., Olsson, D., 2019. The Sustainability Consciousness Questionnaire: The theoretical development and empirical validation of an evaluation instrument for stakeholders working with sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 27, 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1859

Geroe, S., 2019. Addressing Climate Change Through a Low-Cost, High-Impact Carbon Tax. J. Environ. Dev. 28, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496518821152

Gholamzadehmir, M., Sparks, P., Farsides, T., 2019. Moral licensing, moral cleansing and pro- environmental behaviour: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitudes. J. Environ. Psychol. 101334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101334

Gilg, A., Barr, S., Ford, N., 2005. Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 37, 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.10.016

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Van den Bergh, B., 2010. Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98, 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017346

Han, S., Shavitt, S., 1994. Persuasion and Culture: Advertising Appeals in Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 30, 326–350. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994.1016

Harth, N.S., Leach, C.W., Kessler, T., 2013. Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005

Hausman, D.M., 1981. John Stuart Mill’s Philosophy of Economics. Philos. Sci. 48, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1086/289005

Heffetz, O., 2010. A Test of Conspicuous Consumption: Visibility and Income Elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 93, 1101–1117. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00116

Hirsch, F., 1976. Social limits to growth. Harvard U.P, Cambridge, Mass.

IPCC, 2015. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.

Irandoust, M., 2016. MODELLING CONSUMERS’ DEMAND FOR ORGANIC FOOD PRODUCTS: THE SWEDISH EXPERIENCE 13.

Isenhour, C., 2012. On the challenges of signalling ethics without the stuff: Tales of conspicuous green anti-consumption. Ethical Consum. Soc. Value Econ. Pract. 164.

Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Steen‐Olsen, K., Wood, R., Vita, G., Tukker, A., Hertwich, E.G., 2016. Environmental Impact Assessment of Household Consumption. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12371

Jackson, T., 2009. Prosperity without Growth : Economics for a Finite Planet. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774338

Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E. (Eds.), 1995. The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Kahneman, D., Diener, E., Schwarz, N., 1999. Well-Being: Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell Sage Foundation.

Kareklas, I., Carlson, J.R., Muehling, D.D., 2014. “I Eat Organic for My Benefit and Yours”: Egoistic and Altruistic Considerations for Purchasing Organic Food and Their Implications for Advertising Strategists. J. Advert. 43, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.799450

Kim, S.-W., Lusk, J.L., Brorsen, B.W., 2018. “Look at Me, I’m Buying Organic”: The Effects of Social Pressure on Organic Food Purchases. J. Agric. Resource. Econ. 24.

Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401

Kuhn, P., Kooreman, P., Soetevent, A., Kapteyn, A., 2011. The Effects of Lottery Prizes on Winners and Their Neighbors: Evidence from the Dutch Postcode Lottery. Am. Econ. Rev. Nashv. 101, 2226–2247. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1257/aer.101.5.2226

Layard, R., 2006. Happiness and Public Policy: A Challenge to the Profession. Econ. J. 116, C24– C33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3590410

Lee, H., Paek, H.-J., 2012. Impact of norm perceptions and guilt on audience response to anti- smoking norm PSAs: The case of Korean male smokers: Health Educ. J. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896912450249

Leggett, W., 2014. The politics of behaviour change: nudge, neoliberalism and the state [WWW Document]. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.1332/030557312X655576

Leibenstein, H., 1950. Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers’ Demand. Q. J. Econ. 64, 183. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882692

Lusk, J., Shogren, J.F., 2007. Experimental auctions: methods and applications in economic and marketing research, Quantitative methods for applied economics and business research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York.

Marx, K., Engels, F., 1942. Wage-labour and capital. International Bookshop.

Mason, R., 1998. The Economics of Conspicuous Consumption. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Mason, R., 1984. Conspicuous Consumption: A Literature Review. Eur. J. Mark. 18, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004779

Mclntyre, R., 1992. Consumption in Contemporary Capitalism: Beyond Marx and Veblen. Rev. Soc. Econ. 50, 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/759368948

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., Behrens III, W.W., 1972. The limits to growth: a report to the club of Rome (1972). Google Sch.

Merrium-Webster, 2019. Definition of CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION. Merrium-Webster Dict.

Milinski M., Semmann D., Krambeck H., 2002. Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269, 881–883. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.1964

Mols, F., Haslam, S.A., Jetten, J., Steffens, N.K., 2015. Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 54, 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475- 6765.12073

Nord, W., 1973. Adam Smith and Contemporary Social Exchange Theory. Am. J. Econ. Sociology. 32, 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1973.tb02440.x

Ordabayeva, N., Chandon, P., 2011. Getting Ahead of the Joneses: When Equality Increases Conspicuous Consumption among Bottom-Tier Consumers. J. Consumption. Res. 38, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1086/658165

Peattie, K., 2010. Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms. Annual. Rev. Environ. Resource. 35, 195–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032609-094328

Piketty, T., Saez, E., 2003. Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998. Q. J. Econ. 118, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535135

Podoshen, J.S., Andrzejewski, S.A., 2012. An Examination of the Relationships Between Materialism, Conspicuous Consumption, Impulse Buying, and Brand Loyalty. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 20, 319–334. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200306

Popper, K., 1968. The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.

Portwood-Stacer, L., 2012. Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention: New Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465139

Raworth, K., 2017. Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, VT.

Regeringskansliet, Roch, 2017. A National Food Strategy for Sweden – more jobs and sustainable growth throughout the country. Short version of Government bill 2016/17:104 [WWW Document]. Regeringskansliet. URL https://www.government.se/information- material/2017/04/a-national-food-strategy-for-sweden--more-jobs-and-sustainable-growth- throughout-the-country.-short-version-of-government-bill-201617104/ (accessed 8.15.19).

Røpke, I., 2009. Theories of practice — New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2490–2497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015

Ruiz de Maya, S., López-López, I., Munuera, J.L., 2011. Organic food consumption in Europe: International segmentation based on value system differences. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1767–1775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.019

Schumacher, E.F., 1973. Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered. Vintage, London.

Sharma, K., Bansal, M., 2013. Environmental consciousness, its antecedents and behavioural outcomes. J. Indian Bus. Res. 5, 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-10-2012-0080

Simmons, J.P., Nelson, L.D., Simonsohn, U., 2011. False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632

SJ, 2019. Klimatoro ger kraftig förändring av svenskars resvanor [WWW Document]. Mynewsdesk. URL http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/sj/pressreleases/klimatoro-ger-kraftig-foeraendring-av- svenskars-resvanor-2881081 (accessed 8.21.19).

Smith, A., 1759. The theory of moral sentiments, ed. DD Raphael AL Macfie Lib. FundOriginal Work Publ. 1759ELK.

Southerton, D., Chappells, H., Vliet, B. van, 2004. Sustainable Consumption: The Implications of Changing Infrastructures of Provision. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Statistica, 2018. Sweden: vegetarianism and veganism 2015-2018 [WWW Document]. Statista. URL https://www.statista.com/statistics/684820/survey-on-vegetarianism-and-veganism-in- sweden/ (accessed 8.1.19).

Stiglitz, J.E., 2011. Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair.

Stoknes, P.E., Randers, J., 2015. What We Think about When We Try Not to Think about Global Warming : Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Sundie, J.M., Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J.M., Vohs, K.D., Beal, D.J., 2011. Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 664–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021669

Thøgersen, J., 2011. Green Shopping: For Selfish Reasons or the Common Good? Am. Behav. Sci. 55, 1052–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211407903

Thomas, E.F., McGarty, C., Mavor, K.I., 2009. Transforming “Apathy Into Movement”:The Role of Prosocial Emotions in Motivating Action for Social Change. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13, 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309343290

Trigg, A.B., 2001. Veblen, Bourdieu, and Conspicuous Consumption. J. Econ. Issues 35, 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2001.11506342

Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., Weber, E.U., Raimi, K.T., Vandenbergh, M.P., 2014. Positive and negative spill over of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004

United Nations, (first), 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement.

Veblen, T., 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, Modern library. Random House, New York.

Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecol. Econ. 64, 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.007

Winkelmann, R., 2012. Conspicuous consumption and satisfaction. J. Econ. Psychol. 33, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.08.013

Wong, N.Y.C., 1997. Suppose You Own the World and No One Knows? Conspicuous Consumption, Materialism and Self. ACR North Am. Adv. NA-24.

Zhang, L., Ortmann, A., 2013. Exploring the Meaning of Significance in Experimental Economics (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2356018). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.

Appendixes Appendix A: Ethical Review

Appendix B: Pre-Registration Document

Appendix C: Informed Consent Form

Appendix D: Testing Round

Appendix E: Earnings Tables: All Possible Groups

Appendix F: Test Instructions

Appendix G: General Knowledge Test

1. If an object travels at five metres per second, how many metres does it travel in one hour? a. 30 b. 300 c. 720 d. 1800 e. 18000

2. What is the average (mean) of all the multiples of ten from 10 to 190 inclusive? a. 90 b. 95 c. 100 d. 105 e. 110

3. Who painted the Mona Lisa? a. Leonardo Da Vinci b. Vincent Van Gogh c. Pablo Picasso d. Henri Matisse e. Andy Warhol

4. In a class of 78 students, 41 are taking French, 22 are taking German. Of the students taking French or German, 9 are taking both courses. How many students are not enrolled in either course? a. 6 b. 15 c. 24 d. 33 e. 54

5. When did the French Revolution begin? a. 1776 b. 1789 c. 1801 d. 1816 e. 1889

6. The number 0.127 is how much greater than 1/8? a. ½ b. 2/10 c. 1/50 d. 1/500 e. 2/500

7. The number of degrees that the hour hand of a clock moves through between noon and 2.30 in the afternoon of the same day is a. 720 b. 180 c. 75 d. 65 e. 60

8. Jeff takes 20 minutes to jog around a race course once, and 25 minutes to jog around a second time. What is his average speed in km/hour if the course is 3km long? a. 6 b. 8 c. 10 d. 12 e. 14

9. What is the highest mountain in Africa? a. Mount Everest b. Table Mountain c. Atlas Mountains d. Kilimanjaro e. Mount Kenya

10. Half the people on a bus get off at each stop after the first. No one gets on after the first stop. If only one person gets off at stop number 7, how many people got on at the first stop? a. 128 b. 64 c. 32 d. 16 e. 8

11. A dress on sale in a shop is advertised at D SEK. During the discount sale, its price is reduced by 15%. Staff are allowed a further 10% reduction on the discounted price. If a staff member buys the dress, what will they have to pay in terms of D? a. 0.75D b. 0.76D c. 0.765D d. 0.775D e. 0.805D

12. What is the capital city of Colombia? a. Bogota b. Santiago c. Lima d. Buenos Ares e. Caracas

Appendix H: Sustainability Knowledge Test

1. In 2018, Sweden ranked number 6 among the world’s 188 countries in the Human Development Index (HDI). What aspects are included when assessing a country’s Human Development Index?

a. Child mortality, life expectancy and Gross Domestic Product b. Education, life expectancy and GDP c. Life expectancy, education and income per capita d. Income per capita, GDP and child mortality e. Education, Income per capita and child mortality

2. One of the main threats to the biodiversity of the Baltic Sea is caused by excessive inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus to the marine environment. What is the name of this process?

a. Acidification b. Erosion c. Eutrophication d. Biodiversity loss e. Nitrogen fixing

3. The KRAV-label, founded in 1985, is the most well-known symbol in Sweden for organically produced food showing that the food product has been produced in an environmentally friendly and ethical way. Another label is the EU organic logo used for organically produced food within the European Union. Which of the following areas constitutes requirements for KRAV but not for the EU organic label?

a. The use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers and antibiotics. b. The farm animals are allowed to freely graze in the open-air. c. The use of genetically modified organisms. d. The use of electrical prods in the slaughtering process. e. Food produced within 100 km of the point of consumption

4. Though inequalities persist, women’s representation in parliaments has improved around the world: in 1995, women accounted for approximately 10% of seats in parliaments, in 2015 approximately 22%. Which of the following countries has constantly had the highest percentage of women in its Parliament House since 2003, among all countries worldwide?

a. Rwanda b. Bolivia c. Sweden d. Iceland e. China

5. Carbon dioxide is the main man-made contributor to greenhouse effect. But there are many other heat-trapping gases. Which one of the following is NOT a greenhouse gas?

a. Water Vapour b. Laughing gas (Nitrous oxide) c. Oxygen (o2) d. Methane (Natural Gas) e. Carbon dioxide

6. Renewable sources generate electricity without depleting resources and with far lower greenhouse gases emissions than fossil fuels. Which of the following resources was the biggest contributor to the global renewable electricity available in 2016?

a. Hydroelectricity b. Biomass c. Wind d. Solar e. Geothermal

7. In the end of 2000s, a group of 26 scientists led by Johan Rockström (Stockholm University) identified 9 planetary boundaries of "the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system". According to their assessment in 2015, how many of them has humankind already crossed?

a. 2 (climate change, biodiversity loss) b. 3 (climate change, nitrogen & phosphorous cycles, biodiversity loss) c. 4 (climate change, nitrogen & phosphorous cycles, biodiversity loss, land system change) d. 5 (climate change, nitrogen & phosphorous cycles, biodiversity loss, global freshwater use, land system change) e. 6 (climate change, nitrogen & phosphorous cycles, biodiversity loss, global freshwater use, land system change, ocean acidification)

8. In 1972, the Club of Rome, a think tank of international scientists and economists, published a book entitled "The Limits to Growth". This book emphasized:

a. The economic dangers of the distribution of wealth b. The economic dangers of rising corruption c. The ecological dangers of economic and demographic growth d. The ecological dangers of exponentially increasing pollution e. The political dangers of economic collapse

9. What is the most widely used definition of Sustainable Development (resulting from the Brundtland Report in 1987)?

a. A form of development that respects the environment b. A form of development that finds a balance between environmental, social and economic issues. c. A form of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. d. A form of development that contributes to reducing poverty in Southern countries. e. A form of development that meets the needs of the future without comprising the ability of present generations.

10. In order to fight climate change, policies can target mitigation and adaptation. Which of the following is considered an adaptation?

a. Energy conservation in industry b. Capture and use of landfill gas c. Electrification of transport d. Withdrawal of activities and populations from areas at risk (e.g. Flooding) e. Reducing the consumption of meat products in diets

11. The wealthiest 10% of individuals on the planet are predicted to be responsible for what proportion of carbon emissions. a. 5% b. 25% c. 50% d. 75% e. 90%

12. How many Sustainable Development Goals and associated targets are contained in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?

a. 15 SDGs and 169 targets b. 17 SDGs and 89 targets c. 17 SDGs and 169 targets d. 19 SDGs and 89 targets e. 19 SDGs and 229 targets

Appendix I: CRT Test

Your ID # ______

In this exercise you will be asked to answer three questions. You have 3 minutes to complete these questions. The answers will have no bearing on the rest of today’s proceedings.

1. A bat and a ball cost 110 SEK in total. The bat costs 100 SEK more than the ball.

How much does the ball cost? _____ SEK

2. It takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets.

How long does it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____ minutes

Appendix J: Test Ranking Information Slips

Your score on the general knowledge test is _____

In this session, you have ranked ______in the general knowledge test.

Your score on the sustainability knowledge test is _____

In this session, you have ranked ______in the general knowledge test.

In this session, you have been assigned a rank at random. Your rank is ______

Appendix K: Live Auction Instructions

You have an opportunity to purchase a protein bar, which is seen in front of you. The bar is produced locally, in Åre, Sweden and has a high protein content. It is organic and has KRAV certification.

You will be able to buy as many bars as you wish, so long as the total cost is less than your earnings from the ranking. The price will be between SEK 12 and SEK 28 per bar and will be determined by the roll of a dice shortly. Any money that you do not spend will be added to your earnings to take home with you at the end of the session.

First indicate how much you would be willing to spend in total. Then you will indicate how many bars you would like at each price that may be randomly selected. In this way you may choose to purchase different amounts depending on whether the chocolate is relatively expensive or inexpensive.

After you have completed this sheet, the actual price will be determined by the roll of the die Once the actual price is determined, we give you the opportunity to share your winning decision with the rest of the group, on the white board in front of you. You will share:

1. Your ID. 2. The number of bars you have purchased at this price. 3. The total amount you have spent at this price.

Appendix L: Live Auction

Appendix M: Demographic Surveys Combined Your ID # ______

1. Age ______years

2. Gender Female ☐ Male ☐ Other ☐

3. What is your primary nationality? (Tick one box) Swedish ☐ Other ☐ Please state ______

4. How much money can you typically spend every month on all regular expenses (including rent, groceries and transport)? ______SEK/month

5. How attractive or unattractive are the vouchers we offered you today? (Tick one box) Very attractive ☐ Quite attractive ☐ Neither attractive nor unattractive ☐ Quite unattractive ☐ Very unattractive ☐

6. Which University will you receive your degree certification from? (Tick one box) Uppsala University ☐ SLU ☐ Other (please state) ☐ ______None ☐

7. What is your affiliation with university? (Tick one box) Undergraduate Student ☐ Graduate (Masters) Student ☐ Other (PhD student, researcher, etc.) ☐ N/A ☐

8. Which degree are you currently pursuing? (Tick one box) Sustainable Development (Msc) ☐ Environmental Communication (Msc) ☐ Other (please state) ☐ ______N/A ☐

9. Which year of study of your current degree are you in? (Tick one box) First ☐ Second ☐ Third ☐ More than third year ☐ N/A ☐

10. How often do you actively use (post, comment, like) social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.)?

Several times per day ☐ Several times per week ☐ Several times per month ☐ Once per month or less ☐ I do not actively use social media ☐

11. How many close friends do you have? ______

12. How often do you go to a club or association where you interact with other people (sports team, choir, book club, etc.)?

More than once per week ☐ More than once per month ☐ Several times per year ☐ Once per year or less ☐ Never ☐

13. Please indicate how important or unimportant the following factors are to you when purchasing food (tick one box for each factor)!

Factors Very Quite Neither Quite Very Important Important Important unimportant unimportant nor unimportant 1 The cost of the food 2 Your personal health (nutrients etc.) 3 The ethical treatment of animals 4 The environmental impact of the production 5 How you think it will taste

6 What your friends or family like 7 Krav (or organic) label

8 Fairtrade label

14. How would you describe yourself (tick one box)? Vegan ☐ Vegetarian ☐ Flexible ☐ None of these ☐

15. If you answered flexible above, how often approximately do you eat meat or fish products (tick one box)?

Every day ☐ Around three times a week ☐ Once a week ☐ Once a month ☐ Fewer times than once a month ☐

16. Before this session, how long ago did you last eat anything? ______minutes ago

17. How attractive to you was the protein bar that we used in the auction today (tick one box)?

Very Quite Neither Quite Very Attractive attractive attractive nor unattractive unattractive unattractive

18. Are you allergic to any of the ingredients in this protein bar? Yes ☐ No ☐

19. How many days ago was the most recent time you ate a protein bar? ____ days (enter 0 if you ate one today) I have never eaten a protein bar ☐

20. How attractive to you was the chocolate that we used in the auction today (tick one box)?

Very Quite Neither Quite Very Attractive attractive attractive nor unattractive unattractive unattractive

21. Are you allergic to any of the ingredients in this chocolate bar? Yes ☐ No ☐

22. How many days ago was the most recent time you ate chocolate?

______days (enter 0 if you ate today) I have never eaten chocolate ☐

23. How would you describe your mood right now (tick one box)? Very good ☐ Good ☐ A little bit good☐ Neither good nor bad ☐ A little bit bad ☐ Bad ☐ Very Bad ☐

24. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by placing an X in the relevant box for each row!

Statement Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Agree Strongly Disagree nor Disagree Agree 1 Reducing water consumption is necessary for sustainable development. 2 Preserving the variety of living creatures is necessary for sustainable development (preserving biological diversity). 3 For sustainable development, people need to be educated in how to protect themselves against natural disasters. 4 A culture where conflicts are resolved peacefully through discussion is necessary for sustainable development. 5 Respecting human rights is necessary for sustainable development. 6 To achieve sustainable development, all the people in the world must have access to good education. 7 Sustainable development requires that companies act responsibly towards their employees, customers and suppliers. 8 Sustainable development requires a fair distribution of goods and services among people in the world. 9 Wiping out poverty in the world is necessary for sustainable development. 10 I think that using more natural resources than we need does not threaten the health and well‐being of people in the future. 11 I think that we need stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment. 12 I think that it is important to take measures against problems which have to do with climate change. 13 I think that everyone ought to be given the opportunity to acquire the knowledge, values and skills that are necessary to live sustainably. 14 I think that we who are living now should make sure that people in the future enjoy the same quality of life as we do today. 15 I think that women and men throughout the world must be given the same opportunities for education and employment. 16 I think that companies have a responsibility to reduce the use of packaging and disposable articles. 17 I think it is important to reduce poverty. 18 I think that companies in rich countries should give employees in poor nations the same conditions as in rich countries. 19 I recycle as much as I can. 20 I always separate food waste before putting out the rubbish when I have the chance. 21 I have changed my personal lifestyle in order to reduce waste (e.g., throwing away less food or not wasting materials). 22 When I use a computer or mobile to chat, to text, to play games and so on, I always treat others as respectfully as I would in real life. 23 I support an aid organization or environmental group. 24 I show the same respect to men and women, boys and girls. 25 I do things which help poor people. 26 I often purchase second‐hand goods over the internet or in a shop. 27 I avoid buying goods from companies with a bad reputation for looking after their employees and the environment.

25. For each of the following statements, please indicate how much the person described is similar or dissimilar to you by placing an X in the relevant box for each row!

Statement Very Like Some A Not Not at much me what little like all like like like me like me me me me

1 Thinking up new ideas and being creative is important to him/her. He/she likes to do things in his/her own original way.

2 It is important to him/her to be rich. He/she wants to have a lot of money and expensive things. 3 He/she thinks it is important that every person in the world should be treated equally. He/she believes everyone should have equal opportunities in life.

4 It's important to him/her to show his/her abilities. He/she wants people to admire what he/she does.

5 It is important to him/her to live in secure surroundings. He/she avoids anything that might endanger his/her safety. 6 He/she likes surprises and is always looking for new things to do. He/she thinks it is important to do lots of different things in life.

7 He/she believes that people should do what they're told. He/she thinks people should follow rules at all times, even when no-one is watching.

8 It is important to him/her to listen to people who are different from him/her. Even when he/she disagrees with them, he/she still wants to understand them.

9 It is important to him/her to be humble and modest. He/she tries not to draw attention to himself/herself. 10 Having a good time is important to him/her. He/she likes to “spoil” himself/herself.

11 It is important to him/her to make his/her own decisions about what he/she does. He/she likes to be free and not depend on others. 12 It's very important to him/her to help the people around him/her. He/she wants to care for their well-being. 13 Being very successful is important to him/her. He/she hopes people will recognize his/her achievements. 14 It is important to him/her that the government ensures his/her safety against all threats. He/she wants the state to be strong so it can defend its citizens.

15 He/she looks for adventures and likes to take risks. He/she wants to have an exciting life.

16 It is important for him/her always to behave properly. He/she wants to avoid doing anything people would say is wrong. 17 It is important to him/her to get respect from others. He/she wants people to do what he/she says.

18 It is important to him/her to be loyal to his/her friends. He/she wants to devote himself/herself to people close to him/her. 19 He/she strongly believes that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to him/her. 20 Tradition is important to him/her. He/she tries to follow the customs handed down by his/her religion or his/her family. 21 He/she seeks every chance he/she can to have fun. It is important to him/her to do things that give him/her pleasure.

Appendix N: Session Information Sheet